On Aug 9, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not, it's just too early to make a decision on this IMHO.
Ok, since you're desperate to make this snapshot before leaving for a
long trip, let's keep this out of the snapshot, and decide about it
later.
> What if someone AC_PROG_CC_NO_LINK and then AC_PROG_CC?
AC_PROG_CC is run-once, isn't it? AC_PROG_CC_NO_LINK would just set
up the magic that AC_NO_EXECUTABLES does and run it, so if it's
explicitly run afterwards, you'd get a warning instead of a duplicate
run.
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.
I see. AC_NO_EXECUTABLES is indeed better in this sense.
If you feel like checking it in before the snapshot, I'm all for it,
but I'd rather have it fully disable linking, instead of just setting
up the magic for per-language disabling.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
