>>>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Aug 9, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here is my first proposal.
Alexandre> It's very close to what we need. I just don't like the
Alexandre> name. What's wrong with AC_NO_EXECUTABLES?
The name :) OK, let's go for the name you suggest, I used that one to
underline that people should not depend upon it but the GCC team.
Autoconf is not ready yet for such macros.
Alexandre> How about introducing per-language AC_LINK_IFELSE in
Alexandre> autoconf, so that AC_NO_CXX_EXECUTABLES could be as simple
Alexandre> as: define([AC_LINK_IFELSE(C++)],)?
Why not, it's just too early to make a decision on this IMHO.
Alexandre> Previously, you'd said you didn't like having a macro
Alexandre> changing the meaning of another macro. Then, how about
Alexandre> defining macros such as AC_PROG_CC_NO_LINK and
Alexandre> AC_PROG_CXX_NO_LINK, that would be used *instead* of
Alexandre> AC_PROG_CC and AC_PROG_CXX?
That's probably a nice way to go. But we have to release Autoconf,
and it's too late to get into deep changes. What if someone
AC_PROG_CC_NO_LINK and then AC_PROG_CC? There are too many
combinations to decide on the fly.
Alexandre> They could behave just like AC_GCC_GROSS_HACK, except that
Alexandre> they'd call AC_PROG_CC after their defines.
One problem is that your proposal addresses a single problem. We know
there are plenty of problems to address in this area. We must come
with a better design of all the compiler looking macros. Addressing
each problem individually might produce a monster which is
unmaintainable, not simple to understand and use, not to mention
backwardisms.
