[
AC_DEFINE([ACE_HAS_SHM_OPEN])
AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
],
[
AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
])
You'll of course have to add the library you're testing for to $LIBS
before you run the link-time test, and remove it if the test fails.
HTH,
-Os
_LINK_IFELSE in recent versions of autoconf.
HTH,
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 06:18, David Svoboda wrote:
> If I set
> CXX="KCC" # KCC ... KAI compiler
> CC="$CXX --c"
>
> then after running "AC_PROG_LIBTOOL" I get
>
> checking if libtool supports shared libraries... no
> checking whether to build shared libraries... no
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:29:06AM -0800, Ossama Othman wrote:
> AC_INIT([FOO],[TEST],[],[])
> AC_PREREQ([2.57])
> AC_PROG_CXX
> AC_LANG([C++])
> AC_CHECK_FUNC([qsort],[],[])
> AC_OUTPUT
>
> produces this output:
>
> $ ./configure
> checking for g++..
e error
doesn't appear in the C case. I assume that similar errors will occur
for other functions declared in . I can work around the
problem by temporarily setting the test language to C, but I'd prefer
not to have to do that. Any ideas?
The full `config.log' file is attache
Hi Robert,
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 06:05:40PM -0500, Boehne, Robert wrote:
>
> Are there really any C++ compilers that don't support const and inline?
I've never heard of any. Any that do not are probably really busted.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]&
e compiler.
AFAICT, you'll have to write a custom test using something like
AC_TRY_LINK. Make sure you set the test language to C++.
HTH,
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
i.e. fallback on a compile/link-time test for the
"action-if-cross-compiling" case. I'm sure there are other autoconf
users out there besides me that have done similar.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California
Hi Dan,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 09:02:12PM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Ossama Othman wrote:
> > That should certainly be feasible unless there are some bizarre
> > platforms out there. In any case, this shouldn't be a problem if
> > developers use a reasonable "acti
Hi Dan,
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 11:38:27AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Ossama Othman wrote:
> > I have to agree with Paul. Sometimes it's just not possible to rely
> > on compile/link-time tests alone.
>
> That's ok if three things hold:
> 1. configure.
N that is correct both for self-hosted and for cross
> development.
> (Defaults that work for 'most' targets don't qualify.)
I have to agree with Paul. Sometimes it's just not possible to rely
on compile/link-time tests alone.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECT
n't upgrade until somebody complaints that they can't
> compile my program, *and* puts some work into testing my improvements.
> I'm not holding my breadth. :-)
Good luck. :-)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
use an old version libtool with a
C++ compiler other than GNU C++.
AC_LIBTOOL_CXX was needed in the MLB branch in the past. Now that MLB
has been merged into head, I believe that it is no longer needed.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
On Tue, Aug 07, 2001 at 09:29:22PM -0700, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Try libtool 1.4b-2.
Sorry. No "-2" in there.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
autoconf or libtool.
Try libtool 1.4b-2.
BTW, sorry for not responding to your previous e-mail. I just back
from being out of town. I'll get to it tomorrow. Time to sleep
now. :-)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
u.org mailing lists, how about switching to a stable version?
Of course, Mailman may not be at fault at all, but it certainly does
seem like things started going awry when the switch was made.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California
e
list? I seem to be getting two copies of each e-mail sent from all of
the GNU lists I'm subscribed to.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B
of
> > Russ> incoming messages be turned off?
> >
> > It should be ok by now.
>
> I liked it... :-(
As did I. :-(
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED A
On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 07:29:25PM -0700, Ossama Othman wrote:
> Take a look at the thread detection macros we use for ACE. They are
> fairly extensive, and should be able to detect drafts 4, 6, 7 and
> standard POSIX threads implementations, in addition to Solaris' "U
"UNIX
International" threads (which is of course, not pthreads).
The macros are available at:
http://ace.cs.wustl.edu/cvsweb/ace-latest.cgi/ACE_wrappers/m4/threads.m4
HTH,
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Ir
k of. My own C++ shared library problems prompted
me to contribute to libtool multi-language branch to help stabilize it
as quickly as possible. Hopefully someone else can give you another
option, if libtool isn't suitable for you at this point in time.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PR
o. Automake does a great job
> but only for GCC, not really useful for my project.
I believe that the version of Automake currently in the CVS repository
supports dependency generation for compilers other than gcc via the
newly added `depcomp' script. I'm not sure when the next version
hat
this could be fixed by removing the const from the fifth argument of the
wrapper, but this isn't always an option since users may want semantics
to match those of a const argument, i.e. they don't want their timeval to
be modified. As such, I don't think the const-ness of the fif
_LIB implicitly uses LDFLAGS when running its test. Please
see the message I posted yesterday regarding this issue.
HTH,
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
e'. If you don't have it check if you have it in libnsl.
>
> AC_CHECK_FUNC(gethostbyname, , AC_CHECK_LIB(nsl, gethostbyname)).
Here's a more compact form:
AC_SEARCH_LIBS(gethostbyname, nsl [,action-if-stuff, ,])
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distrib
.e. pulling in the AC_CONFIG_AUX_DIR_DEFAULT but I haven't
had any luck either.
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
he package?
BTW, Akim and Paul, this is one example where I can see that it might
be useful not to exclude detection of a native compiler if
cross-compiling is enabled. :-) :-)
TIA,
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California
Hi Paul,
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 11:05:56PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> oo> Yes, indeed. I don't reset CXXFLAGS in the Makefile at all. What
> oo> I would like is a way to disable the automatically selected &
Hi Assar,
On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 04:49:29AM +0200, Assar Westerlund wrote:
> Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Would it be worthwhile to add a "--enable-debug" and a
> > "--enable-optimize=level" set of configure script options?
>
Hi Earnie,
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 04:26:57PM -0700, Earnie Boyd wrote:
> --- Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -8<-
> > itself a hack. What I feel is a hack is the fact that it must be used
> > to disable the "-g -O2" that autoconf adds to the c
Hi Paul,
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 05:44:44PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> oo> I've had complaints from users about the fact that my configure script
> oo> adds "-g -O2" to CXXFLAGS by default since th
Hi Alexandre,
On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 06:21:47PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On May 22, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The issue here is that the user doesn't appear to have a choice
> > about the "-g -O2" flags. Is this c
th of these flags
without having to fake out the the configure script, but have them
enabled by default?
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
that's not the issue. The issue here is that the user doesn't appear
to have a choice about the "-g -O2" flags. Is this correct? If so,
why does autoconf add these? Shouldn't it be up to the package
maintainer to decide whether these flags get added to the compiler
f
and I trust the
maintainers.
On Wed, May 17, 2000 at 11:07:51AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >>>>> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ossama> However, this point is moot since the proposed Autoconf patch
> Ossama> prevents "misma
Hi Paul,
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 06:06:36PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
> %% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> oo> Before you read on, I'd just like to point that I do agree with your
> oo> "(c)" alternative. So please keep that in mind
a compiler can
> be misinstalled on various systems could be provided.
Right.
> Anyone who is sophisticated enough to want to cross-compile is certainly
> capable of reading the docs, and deserves to be thrashed with the
> proverbial wet noodle if they don't do so.
Hehe, yes indeed. :-)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
e great work Akim! I'm really looking forward to
the latest Autoconf!
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
Hi,
> * acspecific.m4 (AC_FUNC_MMAP): Make it c++ safe.
> (AC_FUNC_ALLOCA): Likewise.
Along these same lines, was my patch to make AC_RESTARTABLE_SYSCALLS
C++ safe ever incorporated. No rush. I know that you guys are
busy. :-)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL
; been fixed in later versions?
Any reason why AC_CANONICAL_HOST can't AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC])? It
seems like that would solve the problem on autoconf's end. Of course,
I haven't put much thought into this. :-)
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Obje
s-compilation isn't enabled than the fact that both
compilers weren't native could be interpreted as a fatal error.
Explicitly enabling cross-compilation would perhaps convert that fatal
error into some noticeable warning created by AC_MSG_WARN, for
example, instead stopping the configure sc
Hi Alexandre,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 02:54:21PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Right, but I think I'm missing something. Are you saying we should
> > use __cplusplus in the AC_PROG_CXX test program?
Hi Alexandre,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 02:41:27PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not really. I was making a pretty big assumption about the potential
> > existence of a such a beast. :-)
>
> I'd
Hi Alexandre,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 11:10:40AM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I think it's bad idea to check for bool and/or if __cplusplus is
> > defined since some C compilers may actually accept t
Hi Olly,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 03:22:49AM +, Olly Betts wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ossama Othman writes:
> >Something like the following should be a good smoke test:
> >
> > class Foo
> > {
> > public:
> > Foo (vo
te why?
"aCC" and "CC" are both C++ compilers on HP-UX. "aCC" is the better
C++ compiler of the two, as Morten pointed out. It certainly seems
like a better idea to detect the better compiler before the bad one,
hence the preference of "aCC" to "CC."
" to "CC" (appears to be safe everywhere)
Right.
> * "cl" could be a lisp compiler on Unix - perhaps only check for it on
> DOS and Windows
Why is this a problem? If it's a lisp compiler than it should
correctly fail. Isn't this okay?
> That a
47 matches
Mail list logo
