shibboleth-dev - RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?
Subject: Shibboleth Developers
List archive
- From: Jim Fox <>
- To:
- Subject: RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?
- Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 10:50:38 -0800 (PST)
It's in subversion, line 293.
# Does the STL in use help or screw us?
AC_TRY_LINK(
[#include <string>],
[std::basic_string<unsigned short> foo; foo=foo+(unsigned short)65],
[AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GOOD_STL,1,
[Define if you have an STL implementation that supports useful
string specialization.])],
)
In xmltooling, yes. In opensaml, no.
Jim
- missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Jim Fox, 12/06/2007
- RE: missing definition in sp beta 2?, Scott Cantor, 12/06/2007
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.