On Fri, Mar 03, 2000 at 09:58:25AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: > "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Alexandre> On Mar 2, 2000, "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >> define([m4_noquote],
: >> [changequote(-=<{,}>=-)$1-=<{}>=-changequote([,])])
:
: Alexand
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Mar 2, 2000, "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> define([m4_noquote],
>> [changequote(-=<{,}>=-)$1-=<{}>=-changequote([,])])
>> That's my final offer :)
Alexandre> I must say that I find this extremely ugly (
On Mar 2, 2000, "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> define([m4_noquote],
> [changequote(-=<{,}>=-)$1-=<{}>=-changequote([,])])
> That's my final offer :)
I must say that I find this extremely ugly (but then, probably so does
anybody else, and that's the point). Anyway, I was wondering
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 07:52:31PM +0100, Lars J. Aas wrote:
: : Lars> define([m4_noquote],
: : Lars> [changequote(-=<[{(,)}]>=-)$1-=<[{()}]>=-changequote([,])])
: :
: : I would say it wouldn't, since you have embedded [] in there, which
: : are the current quotes, there will be just one big arg
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> It would be nice to have a couple of m4 push/popquote macros...
The idea seduced René, I've been faster than you on this one :P
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 07:41:58PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: > "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Lars> Even
:
: Lars> define([m4_noquote],
: Lars> [changequote(-=<[{(,)}]>=-)$1-=<[{()}]>=-changequote([,])])
:
: Lars> would do the trick ;)
:
: I would say it wouldn't, si
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 06:43:41PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote: :
Lars> > "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: : : Lars>
Lars> define([m4_noquote],[changequote(,)$1changequote([,])]) : :
Lars> define([m4_noquote], :
Lars>
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 06:43:41PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: > "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
:
: Lars> define([m4_noquote],[changequote(,)$1changequote([,])])
:
: define([m4_noquote],
: [changequote(,)changequote(-=<[{(,)}]>=-)$1-=<[{()}]>=-changequote([,])])
Even
de
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> define([m4_noquote],[changequote(,)$1changequote([,])])
Actually there's a flow in your macro (untested, but it seems clear):
just try with $1=foo, and I'll bet you'll get a nice foochangequote in
the output. The solution, of course,
On Wed, Mar 01, 2000 at 04:02:40PM +0100, Lars J. Aas wrote:
: patsubst([$1],m4_noquote([[LF TAB]+]),[ ])
:
: is a lot more readable than
:
: patsubst([$1],m4_noquote([[
: ]+]),[ ])
...by which I of course ment...
patsubst([$1],[[
]+]),[ ])
Come to think of it, I might a
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Any chance my little "m4_noquote"-macro will make it into
Lars> autoconf?
I like it. Send a patch!
Akim
I also found another use for the m4_noquote macro:
define([TAB],
[ ])
define([LF],
[
])
patsubst([$1],m4_noquote([[LF TAB]+]),[ ])
is a lot more readable than
patsubst([$1],m4_noquote([[
]+]),[ ])
Cheers,
Lars J
On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 09:44:56PM +0100, Lars J. Aas wrote:
: I agree with the example above, but I don't know how to get rid of my
: changequotes unless there are any alternate methods to make strings with
: m4-invocations inside a couple of []s? What I'm thinking of specifically
: in my case i
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 03:29:17 +0500 (KGT)
From: CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~ :Sorry, I wasn't suggesting that you upgrade to a new version of
~ :autoconf. I was suggesting that you pick up the new macro, and put it
~ :in your acinclude.m4 file, just as you are doing with
~ :
~ :This won't work, because translit is an m4 construct, and $sn_decl is
~ :a shell variable. This will convert $sn_decl to $SN_DECL, and let the
~ :shell cope with that.
oops.. yep. Noticed that :-\ Thanks.
~ :My macro won't work if you call it with a shell variable, so you can't
~ :call i
On 29 Feb 2000 out of nowhere Ian Lance Taylor spoke:
~ :
~ :I don't know what sort of playing around you were doing.
here's exact piece which I made based on the macro you suggested:
AC_DEFUN(SN_CHECK_DECL,[
AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether $1 must be declared])
AC_CACHE_VAL(sn_cv_decl_needed_$1,
[AC_
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 02:59:56 +0500 (KGT)
From: CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED([NEED_DECL_]translit($sn_decl, [a-z], [A-Z]), 1,
[you have this cuz autoheader breaks things abit])
This won't work, because translit is an m4 construct, and $sn_
~ :> sure. it's Mandrake linux release 6.0, it's based on r.h. 6.0 package
~ :> though, so redhat might have it too.
~ :>
~ :As a datapoint, none of the rh dists that i've tried (6.0, 6.1, 6.2
~ :beta) have a listing or version string for autoconf >= 2.14. All of
~ :them are 2.13.
hmm.. So it'
> sure. it's Mandrake linux release 6.0, it's based on r.h. 6.0 package
> though, so redhat might have it too.
>
As a datapoint, none of the rh dists that i've tried (6.0, 6.1, 6.2
beta) have a listing or version string for autoconf >= 2.14. All of
them are 2.13.
-eric
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 01:01:45 +0500 (KGT)
From: CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~ :The GNU binutils use this macro to detect this case:
~ :
oh, by the way while playing with this macro I noticed a couple of
problems :
1. `test $bfd_cv_decl_needed_$1` didn't work because
~ :CyberPsychotic> am using autoconf 1.4.1 package (shipped with
~ :CyberPsychotic> r.h. 6.0) and this macro isn't defined there, starting
~ :
~ :Can you tell me who packaged Autoconf 2.14.1 (I guess that's what you
~ :meant).
sure. it's Mandrake linux release 6.0, it's based on r.h. 6.0 package
~ :The GNU binutils use this macro to detect this case:
~ :
oh, by the way while playing with this macro I noticed a couple of
problems :
1. `test $bfd_cv_decl_needed_$1` didn't work because $bfd_cv_decl_needed
was considered as two shell variables $bfd_cv_decl_needed and $1, so I had
to tweak it
On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 06:42:51PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: | > | changequote(<<, >>)dnl
: | > | *-*-osf[45]*)
: | > | changequote([, ])dnl
: |
: | Akim> Kill the changequotes and use
: | Akim>*-*-osf[[45]]*)
: |
: | I usually recommend *against* this, on the grounds that it is t
| > | changequote(<<, >>)dnl
| > | *-*-osf[45]*)
| > | changequote([, ])dnl
|
| Akim> Kill the changequotes and use
| Akim>*-*-osf[[45]]*)
|
| I usually recommend *against* this, on the grounds that it is too
| subtle.
Well, there are other writings such as:
[ *-*-osf[45]*)]
or
> | changequote(<<, >>)dnl
> | *-*-osf[45]*)
> | changequote([, ])dnl
Akim> Kill the changequotes and use
Akim>*-*-osf[[45]]*)
I usually recommend *against* this, on the grounds that it is too
subtle.
Tom
>Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:48:40 -0500
>From: Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>NTP only uses the DECL_ stuff for cases where the system headers do not
>provide the declarations.
>
> I'm surprised. Personally, I've never seen a case where the system
> headers do not pro
> "Harlan" == Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Harlan> In others, we have found that including some of these headers
Harlan> causes problems on other systems, and it's just too difficult
Harlan> for me to track these interdependency problems down (we only
Harlan> have a half-dozen or
Changequotebusters!
If there's something strange in your neighborhood
Who you gonna call?
Quotebusters!
If there's something weird and it don't look good
Who you gonna call?
Quotebusters!
I ain't afraid of no quote
I ain't afraid of no quote
If you're seeing things running through your head
Wh
> "CyberPsychotic" == CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
CyberPsychotic> ~ : ~ : - Macro: AC_CHECK_DECL (SYMBOL,
CyberPsychotic> [ACTION-IF-FOUND], ~ : [ACTION-IF-NOT-FOUND],
CyberPsychotic> [INCLUDES])
CyberPsychotic> This one sounds exactly what I am looking for, but I
This is e
(I wish I could figure out why supercite won't guess the right attribution.)
I'm sure there are cases where some of these functions are declared in
header files.
In some of these cases, whoever sent in the patch just didn't look hard
enough.
In others, we have found that including some of these
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:53:38 -0500
From: Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The biggest reason NTP is going for correct prototypes is that the NTP code
is kinda widely used, and we make sure the code will compile on a number of
C compilers.
I'm tolerably familiar with the problem
The biggest reason NTP is going for correct prototypes is that the NTP code
is kinda widely used, and we make sure the code will compile on a number of
C compilers.
We also like to crank up as many warnings as we can stand, and do our best
to make the code "correct".
There are a number of "longi
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 17:48:40 -0500
From: Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
NTP only uses the DECL_ stuff for cases where the system headers do not
provide the declarations.
I'm surprised. Personally, I've never seen a case where the system
headers do not provide a declaration, and
NTP only uses the DECL_ stuff for cases where the system headers do not
provide the declarations.
I'm pointing out that depending on the functions involved, the binutils
solution will not work because you are only stating that a declaration is
needed, and there are times there are multiple confli
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 15:06:31 -0500
From: Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
One problem with a "provide decl" check is that different systems need
different declarations for the same function.
The macro only checks whether the function is declared at all.
My experience is that port
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2000 22:21:39 +0500 (KGT)
From: CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~ :The GNU binutils use this macro to detect this case:
[snip]
Thanks for the macro, I would probably use it in my code.
I just have a question regarding it, if you don't mind:
~ :[char *
One problem with a "provide decl" check is that different systems need
different declarations for the same function.
This isn't good, but it's reality.
As a worst case, I remember versions of IRIX that declared main() in a
unique way; If main was declared with a normal prototype, the code would
On Feb 27, 2000, CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> starting with what release this macro has been deployed?
Only the CVS version, so far.
> Also where the current autoconf package is being distributed nowdays?
Development versions are available via anonymous CVS
:pserver:[EMAIL PROT
~ :
~ : - Macro: AC_CHECK_DECL (SYMBOL, [ACTION-IF-FOUND],
~ : [ACTION-IF-NOT-FOUND], [INCLUDES])
This one sounds exactly what I am looking for, but I am using autoconf
1.4.1 package (shipped with r.h. 6.0) and this macro isn't defined there,
starting with what release this macro has be
On 26 Feb 2000 out of nowhere Ian Lance Taylor spoke:
~ :They are not defined on SunOS because SunOS is not an ANSI C compliant
~ :system, and never has been. It doesn't even ship with an ANSI C
~ :compiler.
yeah, I noticed so, naitive compilers breaks on the code, however lots of
people use gc
> "Ian" == Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ian> The GNU binutils use this macro to detect this case:
Ian> dnl See whether we need a declaration for a function.
Ian> AC_DEFUN(BFD_NEED_DECLARATION,
There is something like this in Autoconf now:
Generic Declaration Checks
---
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2000 14:59:49 +0500 (KGT)
From: CyberPsychotic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
What I am actually trying to figure out is whether certain function
prototypes (printf, fprintf etc) are defined in includes by passing
-pedantic-error switch to compiler. I've got a few notices t
42 matches
Mail list logo
