From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9286431FBC for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:00:11 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 1.595 X-Spam-Level: * X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.595 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.594, BAYES_50=0.001] autolearn=ham Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F7nE88bv-9Tf for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:00:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.194]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0497431FAE for ; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 17:00:10 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (mxus1: domain of quadhome.com designates 68.68.99.250 as permitted sender) client-ip=68.68.99.250; envelope-from=scott@quadhome.com; helo=julia.quadhome.com; Received: from julia.quadhome.com (quadhome.xen.prgmr.com [68.68.99.250]) by mx.perfora.net (node=mxus1) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MYPLV-1NMCdc0FsX-00ViSc for notmuch@notmuchmail.org; Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:00:09 -0500 Received: from elise.quadhome.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by julia.quadhome.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BDEED5FBC6 for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:00:05 +0000 (UTC) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Scott Robinson To: notmuch In-reply-to: <1264272821-sup-5331@ben-laptop> References: <87hbqgttqz.fsf@convex-new.cs.unb.ca> <1264019720-359-1-git-send-email-bgamari.foss@gmail.com> <94a0d4531001221658y2eb24146qc9f9f45fbd8b5150@mail.gmail.com> <1264272821-sup-5331@ben-laptop> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:00:04 -0600 Message-Id: <1264381119-sup-9840@elise> User-Agent: Sup/git Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [PATCH] Build and link against notmuch shared library X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:00:11 -0000 Excerpts from bgamari.foss's message of Sat Jan 23 12:58:42 -0600 2010: > True, but I don't think that this means that we need to link the > executable with a C++ compiler. I've tried linking with CC and it seems > to succeed, so I don't think there should be a problem changing it. > Are you using "cc" or "gcc"? Even when cc is an alias to gcc, there are different semantics. And "cc" vs. "cpp" can be even more different on non-GCC compilers. I wouldn't mess with it. :-)