2010/9/22 John E. / TDM
> On 9/22/2010 6:00 AM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> > I also noticed TDM manages to release without the .la files. Would
> > this not create problems with libtool build systems?
>
> If libtool required a .la file for every "-l" option, no one would ever
> adopt it. I delete
On 9/22/2010 6:00 AM, Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> I also noticed TDM manages to release without the .la files. Would
> this not create problems with libtool build systems?
If libtool required a .la file for every "-l" option, no one would ever
adopt it. I delete the .la files to avoid relocation
Ruben Van Boxem wrote:
> 2010/9/22 Ruben Van Boxem
>
>> 2010/9/22 Earnie
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Check the libstdc++.la file. If it looks valid make sure it
>>> doesn't have CRLF line endings.
>>>
>>> Earnie
>>>
>>
>> I have attached the libstdc++.la file. It has unix newlines, and
>> everything (except t
2010/9/22 Ruben Van Boxem
> 2010/9/22 Earnie
>
>
>>
>> Check the libstdc++.la file. If it looks valid make sure it doesn't
>> have CRLF line endings.
>>
>> Earnie
>>
>
> I have attached the libstdc++.la file. It has unix newlines, and everything
> (except the dependency_libs entry) seems ok. cl
2010/9/22 Earnie
>
>
> Check the libstdc++.la file. If it looks valid make sure it doesn't
> have CRLF line endings.
>
> Earnie
>
I have attached the libstdc++.la file. It has unix newlines, and everything
(except the dependency_libs entry) seems ok. clearing that entry (..=' ')
does nothing. T
Hi,
I'm sorry to spam the mailing list, but I'm running into a lot of strange
errors
I tried to recompile the exact same source as is uploaded, but instead of
using sezero's builds to do that, I tried using my freshly built toolchain.
The build failed at ppl, with this error:
libtool: compi
