Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Hello, patch forgotten, sorry. Attached to this mail. Stepan On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:06:53PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hello, > > On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:26:41PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > +# ... We should not override ac_cv_exeext if it was > > > > +# cached, so that the us

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > * doc/autoconf.texi (System Services): Do not document > overriding EXEEXT via ac_cv_exeext=ext. Thanks, I installed that. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Hello, On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 07:26:41PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > +# ... We should not override ac_cv_exeext if it was > > > +# cached, so that the user can short-circuit this test for compilers > > > +# unknown to Autoconf. ... but it would be better if this override were done by ass

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Hi Eric, Paul, * Eric Blake wrote on Thu, May 25, 2006 at 02:49:17PM CEST: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 5/25/2006 4:49 AM: > > +# in a Makefile. Because we should not override ac_cv_exeext if it was > > +# cached, so that the user can short-circuit this test for compilers > > +# unknown to

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Sure. The first patch is the exeext-reversal.diff here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-05/msg00090.html > > and the second patch is the exeext-postreversal2.diff here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/200

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Hi Paul, * Paul Eggert wrote on Fri, May 26, 2006 at 12:04:40AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > OK to commit first the reversal patch posted in an earlier > > message, then this one? > > Sorry, I've lost context. Can you please give us a single message > that contains

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK to commit first the reversal patch posted in an earlier > message, then this one? Sorry, I've lost context. Can you please give us a single message that contains both patches, or a URL to both patches? Thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Ralf, According to Ralf Wildenhues on 5/25/2006 4:49 AM: > > 2006-05-25 Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > and Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * lib/autoconf/lang.m4 (_AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT_DEFAULT): Drop the > initializ

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, May 23, 2006 at 11:05:53AM CEST: > > * lib/autoconf/lang.m4 (_AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT_DEFAULT): Drop the > > initialization of `ac_cv_exeext', do not override it if it was > > already set. Add comment about this potential backward > > incompatibility. Do

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

> * lib/autoconf/lang.m4 (_AC_COMPILER_EXEEXT_DEFAULT): Drop the > initialization of `ac_cv_exeext', do not override it if it was > already set. Add comment about this potential backward > incompatibility. Do not export `ac_cv_exeext', Libtool hasn't > needed this fo

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

* Stepan Kasal wrote on Sat, May 20, 2006 at 04:08:38PM CEST: > > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I'm still wondering whether we should just simply revert both patches, > > I have talked with Ralf by phone, and I agree with him that backing > out my cleanup (plus later fixes

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Hello, > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I'm still wondering whether we should just simply revert both patches, I have talked with Ralf by phone, and I agree with him that backing out my cleanup (plus later fixes to it) and replacing it by a couple of straightforward fixes for

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Re , Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2006-04/msg00027.html > ... broke this. > > I'm still wondering whether we should just simply revert both patches, > ... and leave a cleanu

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

[ Cc:ing bug-autoconf as this is a genuine bug IMHO. ] Hi Tim, Thanks for reporting this! * Tim Kosse wrote on Fri, May 19, 2006 at 10:56:01AM CEST: > Package: autoconf > Version: 2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1 > Severity: important > > If crosscompiling an autotools based package with mingw for Windows

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Tim Kosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ben Pfaff wrote: >> Tim Kosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> ./configure --host=i586-mingw32msvc --target=i496-mingw32msvc >> >> Does it have the same behavior without the typo (496 -> 486)? > > Sorry for the typo, the line should have been ./configu

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ben Pfaff wrote: > Tim Kosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> ./configure --host=i586-mingw32msvc --target=i496-mingw32msvc > > Does it have the same behavior without the typo (496 -> 486)? Sorry for the typo, the line should have been ./configure

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Tim Kosse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ./configure --host=i586-mingw32msvc --target=i496-mingw32msvc Does it have the same behavior without the typo (496 -> 486)? -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of

Bug#368012: mingw crosscompilation broken with autoconf-2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1

Package: autoconf Version: 2.59.cvs.2006.05.13-1 Severity: important If crosscompiling an autotools based package with mingw for Windows using this autoconf version, the resulting executable misses the .exe extension. Going back to autoconf-2.59a-9 solves the problem. Steps to reproduce: - insta