Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Perhaps this is a silly idea, but why don't you just run the compiler > without the -g flag to make sure that it created a conftest.o file, > and then run with the -g flag but check that the produced conftest.o > is larger than the first one. Yes, but if we're just testing if the compiler supports `-g', why should we need to test the size of the generated file? Can't we just run `cc -g' and see if it produces an object file? /assar
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Paul Eggert
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Thomas Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Paul Eggert
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Thomas Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Akim Demaille
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Thomas E. Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Mo DeJong
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, ... Assar Westerlund
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Akim Demaille
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Alexandre Oliva
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC... Thomas E. Dickey
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not very ro... Steven G. Johnson
- Re: [gnu.utils.bug] AC_PROG_CC_G, et al, are not ve... Akim Demaille