On Sat, Oct 13, 2001 at 11:18:16AM +0200, Guido Draheim wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > 1. How do i request a C99 compiler? Is there some variation on AC_PROG_CC?
>
> Do never ask for a version declaration, always ask for a feature
> you need - that is the basic principle of autoconf. Many features
> being declared as C99 were present in the 1994-version of a compiler
> too, e.g. { .field: value } was present a long time before in many
> many compilers - the C99 just made that official. So the question
> goes back to you - what *feature* do you want?
i'm using:
for (gint xx=0; xx < 3; xx++) { .. }
and i generally mix variable declarations and statements as i
please instead of putting all the declarations near the open brace.
In terms of an autoconf probe, what do you suggest?
> Such a feature test can then be made independent of AC_PROG_CC, well,
> it would "exit" when the current `cc` or `gcc` does not have the
> feature you want - or do you want a macro that walks through several
> installed compilers and chooses the c99-one?
That seems like overkill.
> Well, that might be
> another page in the book, gnu hackers are usually okay with finding
> the gcc being usually the most uptodate... which is why AC_PROG_CC
> will usually prefer a gcc over vendors'cc when both are there...
Yah, fine.
> > 2. i see a link to "The Official Macro Archive" but it doesn't work.
> > Is there a mirror somewhere?
>
> you do not mean a link to cryp.to/macro-archive but the link to the
> GNU Macro Archive at http://www.gnu.org/software/ac-archive - right?
Oh, neat. No, actually the link is:
http://research.cys.de/autoconf-archive/
i found this link on <http://sources.redhat.com/autoconf/>, so maybe
it needs updating.
--
Victory to the Divine Mother!!
http://sahajayoga.org
