[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> {..}
> Is this stylistically acceptable?
*fg* oh well, speaking about style is (of course) a matter of taste
and then a matter of whose taste it shall please. For a macro that
you want to reuse in your own projects, yes looks good.
Speaking as a maintainer of the (gnu) ac-archive, I would add just
some optional hints:
* calling the macro TEST_C99 is not quite correct as you only test
one specific feature - so it would be good to call the macro as
just that, e.g. TEST_C99_FOR_BLOCK or whatever you like to call it.
Just see how many STL&C++template checks we currently have at the
ac-archive.. compilers might implement C99 features just partially.
* you call a compile-test, even twice, and it looks as if this is a
case that can be turned into a macro using an AC_CACHE_CHECK value.
That's especially good during creation of configure-scrips as the
test can be run with a good cache-file that holds some answers
premade, and there is a good benefit in overly large projects that
might be able to share a answer-file - and speed up their configure
time dramatically.
* tune your (internal and) exported variables, possibly just make them
longer so they do not accidently trap those of other macros, atleast
ensure to give a hint where a variable might have come from that another
macro might start to go and use - $C99 is probably not the best one.
* Personally, I'd prefer the cache_val to contain the needed answer
of the test - well, I'd see the needed clfag -std=gnu99 as the answer.
* in a highgrade extension, consider to add an ACTION-IF, ACTION-IF-NOT,
ACTION-WITH-CFLAG triple along with an ifelse() that puts in default
actions like adding the needed cflag to CFLAGS. But that might be
overdone for what you need - it would just serve you in learning
decent tricks one can do to make an autoconf-macro even more reusable ;-)
* anyway, I'd really like to have this macro in the ac-archive for
others to reuse (and let it be tested for you ;-)) ... just read the
small hints about the small extras that are needed to have it registered:
http://ac-archive.sourceforge.net/#formatting
looking forward, and good luck, Guido
>
> define(TEST_C99_DECL, AC_TRY_COMPILE([],[
> int x=0; x+=1; int y=0;
> for (int z=0; z < 2; z++);
> ],[C99=yes],[C99=no]))
>
> AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether $CC accepts C99 declarations])
> TEST_C99_DECL
> if test $C99 = no -a $GCC = yes; then
> save_CFLAGS="$CFLAGS"
> CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -std=gnu99"
> TEST_C99_DECL
> if test $C99 = no; then
> CFLAGS="$save_CFLAGS"
> else
> C99_COMMENT=', with -std=gnu99'
> fi
> fi
>
> if test $C99 = yes; then
> echo "yes$C99_COMMENT"
> else
> AC_MSG_RESULT(no)
> AC_MSG_ERROR([
> *** This package requires a C compiler with C99 support. Please
> *** consider trying a recent release of GCC.])
> ] fi
> fi
>
> --
> Victory to the Divine Mother!!
> http://sahajayoga.org
-- guido Edel sei der Mensch, hilfreich und gut
GCS/E/S/P C++$++++ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X- (geekcode)
