Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 18 19 64 failed [Solaris 7 SPARC]

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter,

On 7 Mar 2008, at 00:42, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > On 6 Mar 2008, at 20:04, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > > Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > > > Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:
> > > > > > libtool: link: f90 -shared  -Qoption ld --whole-archive
> > > > > > ./.libs/liba1.a ./.libs/liba2.a -Qoption ld --no-whole-archive
> > > > > >    -Qoption ld -soname -Qoption ld liba12.so.0 -o
> > > > > > .libs/liba12.so.0.0.0
> > > > > > /convenience.at:211: exit code was 1, expected 0
> > > > > > 18. convenience.at:169: 18. FC convenience archives
> > > > > > (convenience.at:169): FAILED (convenience.at:211)
> > > >
> > > > Libtool detected FC as f90, but otherwise used the gcc tools.  
> > > > I'll look
> > > > into this.
> > >
> > > Because we generally use the same archive_cmds for F77, FC as for  
> > > CXX,
> > > things can get a little messed up. This "fixes" the most common  
> > > case,
> > > gcc, g++, g77/gfortran & some other fortran compiler, by  
> > > pretending the
> > > "other fortran compiler" does not exist.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> >
> > What happens to a project written with gnu C and vendor fortran?   
> > Will
> > this test spot g++ and refuse to build the fortran files?
>
> Depends on if those fortran compilers have their own rules or if they
> are inheriting.
>
> > Maybe we should look into tagging the archive_cmds instead.
>
> I did not see this mail til just now (after the commit). Want me to  
> revert?


If you think it causes a regression... it seems to me that things are  
no worse
than before, so I think leaving it is fine for now.  A FIXME to look  
at a better
long term solution after we branch seems like a good idea tho'

Cheers,
        Gary
--
  <=====.                   Email me: address@hidden
 / @ @  /|           Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
 \      \\      ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
  \^^^^^^\\

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part