Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> skribis: >> >>> I agree that this is fragile and should be reworked somehow, but for >>> 2.0.10, I wonder if we could just revert the part of 8cb0d6d having to >>> do with gen-scmconfig.c. >>> >>> What do you think? >> >> You’re right. So for 2.0.10, just revert, and then remove #include >> <config.h> altogether in c-tokenize.lex with a comment saying why. > > I don't think we can remove it altogether. On some non-GNU systems, > some Gnulib's headers complain if we haven't yet included <config.h>. > This was the motivation for e1bb79fde62e678c0f8ceb32c7edd2dab0201a5c, > where you moved the "#include <config.h>" to the top of the c-tokenize.
Right. So, should we keep just the c-tokenize.lex part of 8cb0d6d7fa9aaac316c29a64c541336b51b6f93d, and revert the rest? > Dale Evans pointed out that GCC runs the autoconf tests twice when > cross-compiling: once for the build machine and once for the host > machine. I suspect that this is the proper solution for us, so we'd > end up with two config.h files. Yes, but GCC’s configure machinery is really the next level... Ludo’.
