%% Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: eb> Russ Allbery wrote: >> Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I notice that the AC_FUNC_SETVBUF_REVERSED macro has no option for how >> > it behaves during cross-compilation. >> >> Isn't this the macro about which there was general consensus here a >> while back that the likelihood of any system still existing with >> this problem (which was supposedly a bug in a particular software >> release that was later fixed) was so low as to not be worth >> worrying about?
In most packages that is probably the best solution. However, maybe I'm just stubborn, but I tend to be a little more conservative with GNU make (it still compiles with K&R compilers even!) because it's an integral part of the bootstrap chain. However, probably within a few years I'll be willing to let go of these really old systems even in GNU make--they can always use an older version to bootsrap, after all :). eb> Well, I was about to ask for a list of which systems are broken eb> and suggest that a better solution would be to make the value eb> hardcoded based on a filter of that list rather than trying to eb> determine it via executable testing. Hm, not a bad idea. The comments say this was a problem on "System V before release 3". Unfortunately I have no idea how to test that based on the system type. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Find some GNU make tips at: http://www.gnu.org http://www.paulandlesley.org/gmake/ "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
