I'm tempted to say he is right. Why don't we just check for the exit
status? I couldn't find good information in the ChangeLog.
But even if we don't change the logic, the technology is dead wrong.
It should be
if ${CC-cc} -g ... 2&>1 | grep . >/dev/null; then
Akim
The test to det
| gnu m4 1.4
| autoconf 2.13
| AIX 4.3.2
|
| # autoconf
| autoconf: Undefined macros:
| ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_LOCALDIR
Arg, this is a known difference between CVS autoconf and 2.13: in the
latter there is:
if test -n "$localdir"; then
use_localdir="-I$localdir -DAC_LOCALDIR
> "Assar" == Assar Westerlund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Assar> Now, this `feature' is gone from the CVS version of autoconf so
Assar> that code should probably migrate to doing things some other
Assar> way, but that's probably somebody else's problem.
Right. Where can we see that package?
| > I don't get it at all. Why would you have such problems, and I
| > don't???
|
| The problem went away after the latest cvs update. I still get one failure,
| but I see nothing as of yet that would classify it as DOS-specific.
Good to know.
| =
| ./debug-9
After having written a lot of scripts, I've gone tired of testing if
boolean variables contain one string or another (e.g. "yes" vs "no"),
so I've started setting them to "true"/"false" and started using them
like this:
sim_ac_foo_exists=false;
if test ; then
sim_ac_foo_exists=true
fi
Then I l
>
> | gnu m4 1.4
> | autoconf 2.13
> | AIX 4.3.2
> |
> | # autoconf
> | autoconf: Undefined macros:
> | ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_LOCALDIR
>
> Arg, this is a known difference between CVS autoconf and 2.13: in the
> latter there is:
>
> if test -n "$localdir"; then
> use_localdi
Hi!
The current CVS version of Autoconf no longer defines AC_LOCALDIR
which you appear to be depending on in your configure.in script.
Would it be possible to see how and why you use it so that either I
may submit a patch to you, or to Autoconf? A pointer to a tarball is
just what is needed.
T
> "Lars" == Lars J Aas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> My questions are; are there systems where the "false" and "true"
Lars> commands don't exists, and are there other problems with
Lars> scripting things this way?
Yes, they are portable. You can use `:' instead of `true', although
less
On Jun 13, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm tempted to say he is right. Why don't we just check for the exit
> status?
Because some compilers just print a warning message and proceed. GCC
on HP/UX without GNU as is a good example.
> It should be
> if ${CC-cc} -g ... 2&>1
Akim wrote:
>I'm tempted to say he is right. Why don't we just check for the exit
>status? I couldn't find good information in the ChangeLog.
I think the problem is that many compilers (including gcc) often don't give
an error if you pass them bogus flags...they just print a warning message
of
10 matches
Mail list logo
