>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Jul 25, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> sometimes I believe the end user should learn to use his tools
Alexandre> Yup. But if we can help developers help users use their
Alexandre> tools easily, why not? I mean, since the developer must
Alexandre> support CXXEXT in Makefiles, using say AC_CXXEXT in
Alexandre> configure.in would also be optional.
There are two issues here:
1. have Autoconf be able to perform its checks whatever the expected
extensions.
2. have the package compile.
Basically we have two possibilities:
a. looking for supported extensions.
b. looking for special flags.
OT1H, I'm all for a. because it seems more robust and less database
(which is anticonf). OTOH b. is much superior to a. since it does not
need any kind of tricks in Makefiles. OTOOH, Martin seems to know
that some Fortran compilers have no such flags so even if the solution
is better, it is not uniformly superior.
Because there is still no clear means to address 2. with a., I was
wondering if it is really important to solve 1. with a. since anyway
for things to work smoothly the user needs to specify CXX.
But you seem to say let's go for it, it cannot do harm. I think it
does: we might have packages that configure well and fail to compile.
This should never happen IMHO.
But anyway, if we want some support, and we chose a., then I'm all for
it to be automatic: AC_CXXEXT should not be visible, it should be part
of AC_PROG_CXX IMHO.
