bug-libtool
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#9249: Does Libtool 2.4 support Solaris 2.8?


From: Andreas Kupries
Subject: bug#9249: Does Libtool 2.4 support Solaris 2.8?
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:54:41 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11

On 05/08/11 08:18 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Hi Jeff,

On 5 Aug 2011, at 02:37, Jeff Squyres wrote:
I see lots of references to old versions of Solaris in generated Libtool 
scripts, but we've recently been told about a problem with the following with 
Solaris 2.8's sh:
The ${foo##*/} pattern is used in the LT 2.4-generated libtool script (e.g., in 
http://www.open-mpi.org/software/hwloc/v1.2/downloads/hwloc-1.2.tar.bz2).

Is this a known issue?

The default is to not use these non-portable XSI patterns, and only if a 
configure time test case

I can attest that the generated libtool does contain these patterns.

is successful are they spliced into the generated libtool to speed things up.  
Perhaps configure
found a better shell and re-executed itself in order for those checks to pass, 
and then the
generated libtool was passed through the under-powered solaris sh afterwards?

Interesting.

[elided libtool.m4 stuff]

At configure time you should see 'checking whether the shell understands some 
XSI constructs...' and
'checking whether the shell understands "+="...' tests, and the generated 
libtool script should
contain definitions of the shell functions listed above that match the results 
of those tests.
Similarly, ltmain.sh should always contain the unsubstituted implementations of 
those functions,
because _LT_PROG_FUNCTION_REPLACE only knows how to splice in the XSI 
implementations on demand,
and doesn't know how to go back the other way if the configure tests find XSI 
features don't work.
Can you investigate some more and report your findings back to the list?

I will investigate Monday, when I am back in the office, with access to the box in question.

---
Andreas





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]