Richard Stallman wrote:
The goal of Autoconf is to compile the program with whatever
compilers are available.
Yes, and the Autoconf patch I installed does that: it adds clang to the list of
compilers to try. With a patched Autoconf, 'configure' tries gcc before clang.
http://git.savannah.gnu
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
The goal of Autoconf is to compile the program with whatever
compilers are available.
Ruben Safir writes:
>> On 3/16/2016 4:02 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
>>> Cool. I do not remember exactly if this was my motivation for the
>>> original submission but I believe this is still relevant for Cygwin
>>> where you can AFAIK install Clang and not install GCC (which creates
>>> the /usr/bi
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 07:13:18PM +0200, Václav Haisman wrote:
> On 31.3.2016 18:46, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> viable compiler
> >
> > It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
>
> In that case, I am waiting for you to present and get
On 31.3.2016 18:46, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> viable compiler
>
> It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
In that case, I am waiting for you to present and get through patches
that remove aCC, cl.exe, FCC, KCC, RCC, xlC_r, and xlC as well
On 03/17/2016 07:40 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
> makes sense to look for Clang as well as any other viable compiler.
that makes no sense.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 19
On 03/31/2016 12:49 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>>
>>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>>> feature?
>>
>> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>>
>> Apparen
On 03/31/2016 12:49 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>>
>>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>>> feature?
>>
>> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>>
>> Apparen
On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>> That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>
>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>> feature?
>
> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>
> Apparently the project has a set of goals, and breaking th
On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> viable compiler
It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrk
On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>> That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>
>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>> feature?
>
> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>
> Apparently the project has a set of goals, and breaking th
>> That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>
> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
> feature?
+1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
Apparently the project has a set of goals, and breaking the
configuration and compile in some instances meets the go
On 31 March 2016 at 04:30, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 11:30 AM, Earnie wrote:
>> On 3/16/2016 4:02 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
>>> On 15 March 2016 at 17:35, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 10/04/2012 12:41 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>
> Does attached patch work for you?
Foll
On 03/16/2016 11:30 AM, Earnie wrote:
> On 3/16/2016 4:02 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
>> On 15 March 2016 at 17:35, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2012 12:41 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
Does attached patch work for you?
>>>
>>>
>>> Following up on this old thread, I applied the attached. In p
On 16 March 2016 at 16:30, Earnie wrote:
> (...)
> Rather than adding to this list of tools how about a configure.ac macro.
> Something named AC_REQUIRE_TOOL sounds correct and then AC_CHECK_TOOLS
> also checks (or maybe an option to only check) the required tool.
>
> The problem I find with the
On 3/16/2016 4:02 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
> On 15 March 2016 at 17:35, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 10/04/2012 12:41 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>>>
>>> Does attached patch work for you?
>>
>>
>> Following up on this old thread, I applied the attached. In practice I
>> expect this doesn't matter much, a
On 15 March 2016 at 17:35, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/04/2012 12:41 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>>
>> Does attached patch work for you?
>
>
> Following up on this old thread, I applied the attached. In practice I
> expect this doesn't matter much, as people configure with CC=clang when they
> want cla
On 10/04/2012 12:41 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
Does attached patch work for you?
Following up on this old thread, I applied the attached. In practice I
expect this doesn't matter much, as people configure with CC=clang when
they want clang. But we should at least fall back on clang if other C or
On 4 October 2012 07:39, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 10/03/2012 10:27 PM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>> I wonder if the attached patch is not in order
>
> Why just C++? Shouldn't this also affect C,
> and other languages?
Because C++ is what I am interested in. :) And because I actually
could not find a simi
On 10/03/2012 10:27 PM, Václav Zeman wrote:
> I wonder if the attached patch is not in order
Why just C++? Shouldn't this also affect C,
and other languages?
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
20 matches
Mail list logo
