> > Would it be a problem with "regular" compilers if the function was not > > present in the file specified with -lxxx, but existed in a xxx.lib > > file (!) in the cwd? > > That sounds awkward for everyone else, no? It slows down 'configure' and > might run afoul of ".lib" files present for some other purpose.
Yes, I agree… > Can you work around the problem by writing a script wrapper around the > compiler in question? I can, and I have! instead of prepending -l I'm appending .lib, like in AC_SEARCH_LIBS. I was wondering if there was a simpler way to support MSVC out of the box in Autoconf. > Or file a bug report with clang-cl? It seems odd that it'd support other > options with leading minus, but not -l. The original problem is with cl (MSVC). clang-cl is trying to be a drop-in replacement, I guess that it could be a compatibility problem if it started to support more options than MSVC. I'm hijacking this thread to report another looming problem with MSVC: it wants the -Fo option instead of -o. Currently all of the conftests raise this warning. It is never turned into a fatal error, even with /WX /options:strict. > cl : Command line warning D9035 : option 'o' has been deprecated and > will be removed in a future release Do you think there could be a way to integrate Automake's compile [1] script into Autoconf to automatically rewrite these calls? Or another way to change how Autoconf invokes the compiler? [1]: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/automake.git/tree/lib/compile -- Antonin
