Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Except now, HAVE_MALLOC, HAVE_REALLOC, and the results of AC_CHECK_DECLS
> (HAVE_DECL_*) are special cases. They seem to be documented correctly
> as such in the manual, but I think a mention of these in the NEWS item
> would be helpful, given that yo
* David Fang wrote on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:15:09AM CEST:
> > Thanks for reporting this; I didn't realize it was a regression.
> > -Wundef is a bit controversial, but it's easy for Autoconf to support
> > its use for programmers that prefer it, so I installed the following
> > patch.
> In practi
Hello Paul, David,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:29:57PM CEST:
> Thanks for reporting this; I didn't realize it was a regression.
I still don't understand why this is a regression (the FreeBSD 5.4 I
have access to has stdint.h).
> -Wundef is a bit controversial, but it's easy fo
David Fang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In practice, I have actually caught one or two serious errors using
> -Wundef -Werror, as anal-retentive and controversial as it may seem.
You're welcome. (I implemented -Wundef many years ago, so you know
where my sympathies lie. :-)
> Wasn't it pointe
Thanks to all for the discussion, and to Paul for the swift and decisive
patch. I do have a few comments about the documentation portion of
the patch.
> Thanks for reporting this; I didn't realize it was a regression.
> -Wundef is a bit controversial, but it's easy for Autoconf to support
> its u
On 8/13/06, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
> >On Fri, Aug 11, 2006 at 08:52:00AM -0400, Christopher Hulbert wrote:
> >> information, so the PGI compiler creates some updated IPA information
> >> for the conftest. When testing for the next library compiled without
> >> IPA informa
Thanks for reporting this; I didn't realize it was a regression.
-Wundef is a bit controversial, but it's easy for Autoconf to support
its use for programmers that prefer it, so I installed the following
patch.
2006-08-15 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* NEWS: Autoconf now uses constru
nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Really? C99 seems to do so (section 6.10.1). Perhaps I'm reading more
> into it than is actually there, though.
6.10.1#3 ... If the token defined is generated as a result of this
replacement process or use of the defined unary operator does not match
one of the
Really? C99 seems to do so (section 6.10.1). Perhaps I'm reading more
into it than is actually there, though.
-nash
On 8/15/06, Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wouldn't it be preferrable to use #if so that a config.h token could
> be an expression
nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wouldn't it be preferrable to use #if so that a config.h token could
> be an expression that variously evaluates to T/F depending on other
> stuff? For example,
>
> In config.h somewhere:
> #define HAVE_WORKING_MMAP (defined(HAVE_MMAP) && defined(HAVE_MUNMAP))
Wouldn't it be preferrable to use #if so that a config.h token could
be an expression that variously evaluates to T/F depending on other
stuff? For example,
In config.h somewhere:
#define HAVE_WORKING_MMAP (defined(HAVE_MMAP) && defined(HAVE_MUNMAP))
In the program:
#if HAVE_WORKING_MMAP
...
Hello again,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:45:13PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> http://cygwin.com/ml/autoconf-patches/2000-q1/msg00101.html
this mail gives the folowing impression:
1) In config.h, the macro should be either defined to 1 or left
undefined, so that both #if and #ifdef work in the
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:45:13PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Neither can I, but there has been a move in some GNU packages (Autoconf,
> Gnulib) from #ifdef to #if, which I've never understood. If we want a
> move back, we need to know the incentives that caused it in the first
> plac
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:42:49PM +0100, Keith MARSHALL wrote:
> `#if HAVE_NONSUCH_H' would be testing the *value*
> of a symbol which isn't defined, so is invalid.
> [... It] is a bug wrt current practice
> in `config.h', of not defining symbols for missing headers.
I would say it is a b
Hello Stepan, David,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 03:00:12PM CEST:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:42:28PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
> > After all, isn't this the convention used in producing "config.h"
> > and using it for conditional #includes?
>
> Though I originally thought that
Stepan Kasal wrote, quoting David Fang:
>> >8 snip 8<
>> | #if HAVE_STDINT_H
>> | # include
>> | #endif
>> >8 snip 8<
...
>> | #ifdef HAVE_STDINT_H
>> | # include
>> | #endif
>>
>> After all, isn't this the convention used in producing "config.h"
>> and using it f
Hello,
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 11:42:28PM -0400, David Fang wrote:
> >8 snip 8<
> | #if HAVE_STDINT_H
> | # include
> | #endif
> >8 snip 8<
...
> | #ifdef HAVE_STDINT_H
> | # include
> | #endif
>
> After all, isn't this the convention used in producing "config.h"
17 matches
Mail list logo
