| > autoconf: Undefined macros:
| > ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
| > ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
| > ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
| > configure.in:2:AC_CHECK_TOTO
|
| That's not really helpful, I know.
And in fact most of
| The obvious reason for this behavior is that AC_PROG_CC requires
| AC_PROG_CPP to run before the AC_PROG_CC macro body. This will then
| pick up the gcc compiler (if present) and then use the cached value
| for CC, no matter which compilers we specify for AC_PROG_CC.
|
| Any suggestions on how
Akim Demaille writes:
> Anyway, I am still against the possibility to specify a list of
> compilers for AC_PROG_CC, CXX etc. I think we will never stop having
> problem with this feature :(
This feature is extremely useful, because the default list is pretty
useless for some platforms and packa
Hello, Akim!
> | > autoconf: Undefined macros:
> | > ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
> | > ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
> | > ***BUG in Autoconf--please report*** AC_FD_CC
> | > configure.in:2:AC_CHECK_TOTO
> |
> | That's not really helpful, I know.
>
>
On Oct 9, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Currently I can't think of any good one. In addition, I now think it
> is now feasible to merge *_CPP in *_CC as I first thought, not without
> revamping a lot of code which is a big no before 2.50.
How hard do you think it would be to
