> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> I'm really looking forward to the latest Autoconf!
So do I, so do I :)
Paul said:
| This is what I would consider the best solution:
|
| a) By default, all instances where a simple program can't be run after
| linking successfully are treated as immediate, fatal errors, and a
| message indicating "your compiler is broken" is printed.
Agreed.
| b) There
> "Paul" == Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> First, IMO warnings aren't good enough.
I agree with you, sincerely I do. Nevertheless Autoconf cannot be
changed like this, we need a general agreement first. Maybe I should
have presented my proposal the other way round: have it
> "Paul" == Paul D Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Paul> Yes, but it prevents them in a way that makes it _MORE_ likely
Paul> that you will get the wrong behavior, instead of _LESS_ likely
Paul> (IIUC).
I understand your grief: the fact that in case of conflict, the
cross-compiling assumpt
> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> Again, I admit that I can't think of any reason why anyone
Ossama> would want such a configuration, but IMHO autoconf should not
Ossama> be so restrictive.
I think it should. It should propose the Right Way To Do It to the
peop
I was told to forward this message to you. Thanks for your help.
Adrien Peirotes
> --
> De : Free Software Foundation[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Date :mercredi 17 mai 2000 11:35
> A : Peirotes, Adrien PH/FR/EXT
> Objet : Re: autoconf and m4 bug?
>
Hi!
Your problem is probably that Autoconf did not pick the right m4, and
probably tried the Solaris' version instead of your GNU m4.
To help it, try
M4=/path/to/gnu/m4 ./configure
or be sure to have your PATH which first visits the directory where
GNU m4 is.
Akim
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 when you read my
> oo> disagreements bel
Hi Akim,
It appears that my opinions have been odd ones out. No problem, just
an observation. :-)
BTW, my comments below are more design philosophy related in nature
than actual proposals for a change. So please ignore this message if
you're too busy. Autoconf has been good to me, and I tru
> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> Paul, I think that for the most part I agree with your
Ossama> suggestions. Now on to Akim. :-)
Waiting for you :)
> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> BTW, my comments below are more design philosophy related in
Ossama> nature than actual proposals for a change.
Nah, you don't need any excuse for expressing yourself :)
>> I'm not sure to understand what you are referring to
%% Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
ad> I think it should. It should propose the Right Way To Do It to the
ad> people who know, and this is --host, and refuse any other alternative
ad> guess. Let's have only one answer per question. Several answers,
ad> several ways to perform
%% Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
oo> Right. I'm sure that this issue has already been beaten to death,
oo> but I haven't been a bit distracted these past few weeks. Have
oo> any steps been taken to address the faults with the detection
oo> code, at least to improve it, and d
On May 16, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here is my interpretation of your work. Alexandre, what do you think
> about it?
Really cute :-) Congrats,
>[The number of bytes in a `]$1['.])
^ chars, actually
sizeof(cha
On May 16, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + Either we cross-compile the whole package, or we don't.
> + Using --host explicitly enables cross-compilation.
Ok
> +AC_MSG_WARN([the C compiler is not a cross compiler as was expected]);;
I'm not sure I like this warnin
On May 16, 2000, Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 03:10:22PM -0400, Paul D. Smith wrote:
>> a) By default, all instances where a simple program can't be run after
>> linking successfully are treated as immediate, fatal errors, and a
>> message indicating "your c
On May 17, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Paul any mismatch should be an error.
I vote for *skipping* the cross-compilation test in case --host is
specified. The reason is simple:
myi586% configure CC="gcc -mcpu=i686" --host i686-pc-linux-gnu
The program used by
17 matches
Mail list logo
