> "Kevin" == Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kevin> I thought of using AC_CONFIG_FILES, but that put settings
Kevin> through into the makefiles, which is harmless but
Kevin> AC_CONFIG_HEADERS seemed better suited to #defines. I guess
Kevin> also there's no reason not to use a separate
I've put together a autoconf macro to configure CC to include the Win32
API, if it is available. I've only put in the methods _I know of and can
test_, more fallback tests are welcome.
Sample code to use it in configure.in, when the program _needs_ the
win32 API:
AC_CANONICAL_HOST
case "${host}
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:15:31AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
: It sets ac_cc_win32 to yes or no as appropriate, so test writers in
: configure.in can do an AC_SUBST or AC_DEFINE and switch off bits of
: their code, or do as above, and fail the configure script.
It's more useful to set it to "t
Thanks. I'll do a new one up with that change (and any others suggested
in the meantime). It's quite late where I am (1:30 am) so that'll be
tomorrow :]
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[E
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Hi, this came up in our project. Why, if a package is required
Peter> to ship install-sh anyway, do we look for a system install
Peter> program when this might just cause weird problems? (And you
Peter> know that many system's
I want a macro that automatically adds the compiler flags to disable
exception handling, e.g. '-fno-exceptions' for gcc. Does such a macro
already exist? If not, how would I go about creating one?
Jeremy
--
Jeremy Slade
Hewlett-Packard Company VLSI Technology Center - http://cpus.hp.com/
[EMA
Ok,
version 2.. returns true/false now. I've also updated te sample code
to reflect this
... updated email ...
I've put together a autoconf macro to configure CC to include the Win32
API, if it is available. I've only put in the methods _I know of and can
test_, more fallback tests are welcom
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, it is.
> The point being we are *falling* back to our version of the tools, but
> we always try to use what's available on the system. This is why we
> don't impose GNU fnmatch.c, regex.c, strftime.c etc. It's almost
> ideological, we are here t
On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> version 2.. returns true/false now. I've also updated te sample code
> to reflect this
Better use `:' instead of `true'. I'm not sure `:' is more portable,
but at least it's a built-in in more shells than `true'.
I suggest sepa
