%% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2) If you've already tested for C and that decided it _wasn't_
>> cross-compiling, then you test for C++ and it decides you _are_
>> cross-compiling, that should be a fatal error right there, too.
oo> I disagree. I don't think autoconf should impose any such
oo> restriction. Admittedly, I can't think of any package that would
oo> actually depend on a native C compiler and a cross C++ compiler.
oo> Nevertheless, I think it is a bad idea to make autoconf assume that
oo> such a situation is a fatal error.
OK. I guess we're talking about default behavior. I'm willing to have
this over-ridable somehow if it's implemented.
oo> Wouldn't your first suggestion take care of the second situation you
oo> mention? If cross-compilation isn't enabled than the fact that both
oo> compilers weren't native could be interpreted as a fatal error.
oo> Explicitly enabling cross-compilation would perhaps convert that fatal
oo> error into some noticeable warning created by AC_MSG_WARN, for
oo> example, instead stopping the configure script.
oo> I'd prefer to see something like this rather than impose the
oo> restriction you describe. Thoughts?
OK w/ me.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
