Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming > #3011

Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test?

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> writes:
>> ..., namely "What's your question?".
>
> 1. Other software developers generated the affected library successfully.
>
> Examples:
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/opal.git
> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/libopal3.10.9
> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=openSUSE%3AFactory&package=opal
>
> So I wonder why I stumble on "undefined references" for my build configuration
> variant. I expect that all needed symbols should be available also for the
> linker. Why can they not be resolved here?

That's a question nobody except you can answer. But "it worked on
other installations, hence, it must work on this installation, too" is
a non-sequitur: Obviously 'something must be different' on the
installation where it didn't work.

> 2. The shown configuration test is generated by the Autotools. The command
> contains duplicate options and preprocessor symbols. I dared to shorten the call
> a bit. Why are the displayed messages so different after my adjustment?

All you posted is 'a test program' (which might or might not be identical to
the one used during configuration) and 'a compilation command' which
you believe to be semantically equivalent to 'another compilation
command' nobody except you saw. The fact that there was a difference
in behaviour (assuming there was actually a difference in behaviour
and not just a copy&paste error you made which looks as if there was
a difference in behaviour) implies that "both must be different"
despite you don't think they are. But beyond the obviously suggestion
that your opinion regarding the 'equivalence' of 'all of A' and 'all
of B' cannot possibly be true (here including that you actually posted
all relevant output for both cases), there's nothing anyone can say to
that.

BTW: Please stop this 'posted & mailed' nonsense --- I don't mind
getting mail in reply to USENET postings, that's why I use a real
e-mail address, but a mail in addition to a posting is somewhat
useless.

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> - 2013-02-09 12:15 +0100
  Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-02-10 18:27 +0000
    Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> - 2013-02-11 09:55 +0100
      Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2013-02-11 13:38 +0100
        Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> - 2013-02-11 18:28 +0100
          Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Johann Klammer <klammerj@NOSPAM.a1.net> - 2013-02-11 19:35 +0100
            Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error   messages for a configuration test? Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> - 2013-02-11 20:02 +0100
      Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-02-13 11:59 +0000
        Re: Should the passed command parameters result into the same error messages for a configuration test? Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> - 2013-02-13 20:57 +0100

csiph-web