Re: Using AC_C_INLINE blows up C++ tests

2003-07-01 Thread John W. Eaton
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:56:59AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > That patch (archived in > ) > assumes that 'inline' always works with every C++ compiler. Is this > assumption correct? I think it should be. I don't have my copy of t

Re: HPUX 11.00 with aCC vs. autoconf 2.57 [#8108]

2003-07-01 Thread Albert Chin
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:31:24AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > How's this. I don't ifdef __GNUC__ as you mention glibc above > > > --- lib/autoconf/c.m4.orig Sun Dec 22 22:10:46 2002 > > +++ lib/autoconf/c.m4 Tue Jun 24 10:26:11 2003 > > @@

Re: Using AC_C_INLINE blows up C++ tests

2003-07-01 Thread Albert Chin
On Tue, Jul 01, 2003 at 09:56:59AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > How about the patch below. > > That patch (archived in > ) > assumes that 'inline' always works with every C++ compiler. I

Re: Using AC_C_INLINE blows up C++ tests

2003-07-01 Thread Paul Eggert
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How about the patch below. That patch (archived in ) assumes that 'inline' always works with every C++ compiler. Is this assumption correct? If not, we should instead modify Autoconf to te

Re: HPUX 11.00 with aCC vs. autoconf 2.57 [#8108]

2003-07-01 Thread Paul Eggert
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How's this. I don't ifdef __GNUC__ as you mention glibc above > --- lib/autoconf/c.m4.origSun Dec 22 22:10:46 2002 > +++ lib/autoconf/c.m4 Tue Jun 24 10:26:11 2003 > @@ -735,7 +742,7 @@ > done > rm -f conftest* > if test -n "$ac_declaration"; t

Re: Wanna heara story?

2003-07-01 Thread Michael Austin
NEVER AGAIN BE EMBARRASSED ABOUT YOUR SIZE VPj0kr9-RX has helped over 700,000 men worldwideSome benefits include: * Gain up to 3 Full Inches in Length * Expand Your Peni2ng8is up to 20% Thicker * Stop Premature Ejacui2dk7lation! * Produce Stronger, Rock Hard Erem26cqctions * 100% S

Re: shared extension

2003-07-01 Thread Max Bowsher
Waldemar Rosenbach wrote: > Linux > autoconf 2.57 > libtool 1.5 > > in the generated configure file there is several times > shrext=".so" and shrext='$shrext' > , but shrext is not used at all, but schared_ext, that is not defined > anywhere, so I get libraries without extesion. > > Is this a bug

shared extension

2003-07-01 Thread Waldemar Rosenbach
Linux autoconf 2.57 libtool 1.5 in the generated configure file there is several times shrext=".so" and shrext='$shrext' , but shrext is not used at all, but schared_ext, that is not defined anywhere, so I get libraries without extesion. Is this a bug or did I oversaw anything?