- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
| Sample code to use it in configure.in, when the program _needs_ the
| win32 API:
|
| AC_CANONICAL_HOST
|
| case "${host}" in
| *-*-cygwin*)
| AC_PROG_CC_WIN32
| if $ac_cc_win32; then
| dnl do nothing here - any header checks /library checks etc
| later in configure.in
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
>
> | Sample code to use it in configure.in, when the program _need
> - Original Message -
> From: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
> > On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > I suggest separating `test for features and display results' from
`set
> > variables', so that you can enclose the tests within AC_CACHE_CH
| > My opinion is that AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 should contain an AC_REQUIRE of
| > AC_CANONICAL_HOST, and should ensure the case $host itself.
|
| Why?
To make it easier to read and write where it is used.
| There is no side effect if it is tested for on platforms other than
| cygwin.
Nor in my pr
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> - Original Message -
> From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PRO
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> It looks like the cc result is not used from cache - so I
Robert> don't think this test should allow caching. Also I have a
Robert> question on the caching: I need to cache _the change needed to
Robert> CC_... Is that temporary
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> | > My opinion is that AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 should contain an AC_REQUIRE
of
> | > AC_CANONICAL_HOST, and should ensure the case $host itself.
> |
> | Why?
>
> To make it easier to read and write where it is used.
Ok. Lets s
- Original Message -
From: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Akim Demaille"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
>
> - Original Message -
> Fr
| The developer could use
| AC_PROG_CC_WIN32
| AC_CHECK_HEADER([windows.h])
|
| and then (test in the configure script) / (surround the win32 code with
| #IF_HAVE_WINDOWS_H), but I thought giving the developer a clear
| mechanism would be nice.
Then it seems to me that the interface is not rig
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
>
> Robert> It looks like the cc result is not used from cache - so I
> Robert> don't think this test should allow caching. Also I have a
> Robert> question on
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then it seems to me that the interface is not right. Maybe
>> something like
>>
>> AC_HEADER_WINDOWS
Robert> Good suggestion. Then the developer can simply check for
Robert> HAVE_WINDOWS_H afterwards.. I like :] What about the lan
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> - Original Message -
> Fro
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> > "Robert" == Robert C
just a note: another reason that LDFLAGS etc aren't changed, is that
it's not needed:
(from the gcc specs file entry *cpp:
%{mwin32:-DWIN32 -D_WIN32 -D__WIN32 -D__WIN32__ -DWINNT -idirafter
/usr/include/w32api}
)
Of course it may need to change in the future..
Rob
I just went and looked at the AC_LANG stuff properly - to support that
properly it seems like I need to choose
_which_ variables get altered on the basis of the current stack value,
or go with language specific functions.
Whats better? Is it worth supporting the AC_LANG for this essentially
non-u
| Yes. Well the namespace pollution is already solved - that was my
| ignorance. I think the best bet is the high/low level interface.
|
| the questions are then:
|
| one low level interface for each language? (I think yes)
Yep, the current one.
| one high level interface for each language (I
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 02:51:08AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
: 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 porta
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Robert> I just went and looked at the AC_LANG stuff properly - to
Robert> support that properly it seems like I need to choose _which_
Robert> variables get altered on the basis of the current stack value,
Robert> or go with language sp
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
>
> Correct. Anyway Autoc
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> | What does the high level interface do ? (I suggest it sets the
Robert> variables
>> | named above, setting them to " " as a minimum if WIN32 is found,
>> and | nothing if it is not.
>>
>> What's the point? Just define a user var
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> > "Robert" == Rober
> "Robert" == Robert Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then there is yet another thing to introduce IMHO, AC_SYS_WIN32 or
>> so, which does define this symbol to yes/no. You high level macro
>> ac_requires it.
Robert> Doesn't that just check the _current_ support ?
Sorry, I don't unde
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> > "Robert" == Robert Co
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gnu.utils.bug as well.
Hi,
The next snapshot of Autoconf is held because we know we have a
problem with Ultrix, but we are unable to fix it for lack of system on
which we could test. We do have an active participant
This has a better test that ; a high level interface and two
low level interfaces.
I had _no_ idea what the high level interface should be called, so I
called it AC_API_WIN32 - please suggest a better name.
The low level interface sets WIN32FLAGS to the needed flags for that
language (but doesn'
I still don't think all of this fuss is really worth it but I'm going to
add my 29 cents worth in this thread.
AISI, what is needed is only whether or not the the compiler supports a
-mwin32 switch. Then the configure.in can use it.
Code for what's needed in a portable fashion and don't worry a
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:18:37PM +0100, Lars J. Aas wrote:
: I agree, but I'd rather have the implementation/optimization details hidden
: in some autoconf-provided variables like $as_true and $as_false - it would
: be less obfuscating. Then you could set $as_true to ":" and perhaps $as_false
:
it's a language feature.
it attempts to answer the following question:
how do i get a windows C-based [.c, .cc, .m] file to an object file?
it's just syntactic sugar for -mwin32, which itself is syntactic sugar for
setting some defines, some include paths.
iirc, it doesn't set the *link* param
> "tailbert" == tailbert writes:
tailbert> it's a language feature.
OK, but then I fail to understand why you'd need to have WIN32=' ' to
know the test was run. Either you are looking for a switch for a
language dependent feature, or you look for some support of something
on your system,
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> > "tailbert" == tailbert write
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
> Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
>
- Original Message -
From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "edward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> I still don't think all of this fuss i
Hopefully this is it (barring a rename on the high level interface.
I missed the CPPFLAGS in the last version..
If you're code is portable this is effective with a simple
AC_API_WIN32
Rob
acinclude.m4
| Hopefully this is it (barring a rename on the high level interface.
| I missed the CPPFLAGS in the last version..
| If you're code is portable this is effective with a simple
| AC_API_WIN32
You should really read the CVS Autoconf documentation. Your quotation
is dangerous at some points, and
Marc Espie, maintainer of gcc for OpenBSD, wrote:
> The gcc that is the system compiler on OpenBSD is never going to look under
> /usr/local.
The same problem affects also FreeBSD and NetBSD.
Therefore I propose the following changes to the INSTALL file. Apart
from *BSD, it also treats the HP-
| *** INSTALL.orig Sun May 25 18:17:24 1997
| --- INSTALL Sun Mar 11 16:49:42 2001
| ***
| *** 119,124
| --- 119,147
| you can use the `configure' options `--x-includes=DIR' and
| `--x-libraries=DIR' to specify their locations.
|
| + Particular Systems
| +
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>Neato.. But can we put CFLAGS="$WIN32FLAGS $CFLAGS" or will that break
>other things? AFAIK (Chris - any comment) the -mwin32 needs to go
>first..
It breaks builds from the gcc or gdb build trees which override CFLAGS
from the top l
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:27:45PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>just a note: another reason that LDFLAGS etc aren't changed, is that
>it's not needed:
>
>(from the gcc specs file entry *cpp:
>
>%{mwin32:-DWIN32 -D_WIN32 -D__WIN32 -D__WIN32__ -DWINNT -idirafter
>/usr/include/w32api}
>)
>
>Of cours
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> And in fact, just factor AC_PROG_CXX_WIN32 as an AC_REQUIRE of
Akim> this macros.
Irrelevant, I had not paid attention, and missed the fact there were
two different macro invocations.
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> | Hopefully this is it (barring a rename on the high level i
| > | AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC])
| >
| > dnl at the end
|
| what do you mean by this?
AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC])dnl
| The curse of reading other peoples code : I got this from a
| /usr/share/aclocal/ routine
Send fixes to the authors :)
| I'm not quite sure whether you meant indent all of them
On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Robert Collins wrote:
> The curse of reading other peoples code : I got this from a
> /usr/share/aclocal/ routine
>
> >
> > | WIN32FLAGS=
> > | AC_TRY_COMPILE(,[#ifndef WIN32
> > | #ifndef _WIN32
> > | #error WIN32 or _WIN32 not defined
> > | #endif
> > | #endif],
> >
> > #e
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:16 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> | > | AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC])
> | >
> | > dnl at the end
>
AC_LANG_CASE(
dnl[C], AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 [CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $WIN32FLAGS],
dnl [C++],[CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS $WIN32FLAGS],
dnl [Fortran 77], [FFLAGS="$FFLAGS $WIN32FLAGS],
[AC_FATAL([NIah? Never heard of] _AC_LANG)])
What problem do you have? It works
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:54:01AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>> I still don't think all of this fuss is really worth it but I'm going
>to
>> add my 29 cents worth in this thread.
>>
>> AISI, what is needed is only whether or not the the compiler supports
>a
>> -mwin32 switch. Then the configur
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 04:10:25PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> If people think this is a useful addition, why not, but I tend to
> think the current text is already clear enough. And a system specific
> section seems not too good an idea to me.
No, this is definitely a useful addition. Note
Marc Espie writes:
> which would tend to indicate to me that even knowledgeable people don't
> find this obvious...
Yup. Also, on HP-UX my first attempt was "cc", my second was "cc -Aa",
my third was "cc -Aa -D_HPUX_SOURCE", and only with some help by Jim
or Paul I knew that "cc -Ae" is the righ
> "Bruno" == Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruno> Marc Espie writes:
>> which would tend to indicate to me that even knowledgeable people
>> don't find this obvious...
Bruno> Yup. Also, on HP-UX my first attempt was "cc", my second was
Bruno> "cc -Aa", my third was "cc -Aa -D_HPUX
Akim Demaille writes:
> a system specific section seems not too good an idea to me.
I thought the same, until the bug reports I got from users of these
systems showed me that
1. the default settings are not right on these systems,
2. the right settings are not obvious even to the users of the
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:13:24PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Bruno" == Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bruno> Marc Espie writes:
> >> which would tend to indicate to me that even knowledgeable people
> >> don't find this obvious...
> Bruno> Yup. Also, on HP-UX my first atte
Bruno Haible writes:
> Marc Espie writes:
>
> > which would tend to indicate to me that even knowledgeable people don't
> > find this obvious...
>
> Yup. Also, on HP-UX my first attempt was "cc", my second was "cc -Aa",
> my third was "cc -Aa -D_HPUX_SOURCE", and only with some help by Jim
> or
> "Marc" == Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Bruno> Also, on HP-UX my first attempt was "cc", my second was "cc
Bruno> -Aa", my third was "cc -Aa -D_HPUX_SOURCE", and only with some
Bruno> help by Jim or Paul I knew that "cc -Ae" is the right
Bruno> thing. It's not obvious.
>> That's w
| Akim Demaille writes:
| > a system specific section seems not too good an idea to me.
|
| I thought the same, until the bug reports I got from users of these
| systems showed me that
| 1. the default settings are not right on these systems,
| 2. the right settings are not obvious even to t
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:23:15PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Marc" == Marc Espie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Bruno> Also, on HP-UX my first attempt was "cc", my second was "cc
> Bruno> -Aa", my third was "cc -Aa -D_HPUX_SOURCE", and only with some
> Bruno> help by Jim or Paul I kne
I wrote:
> Marc> I don't have any objection to guessing at -I/usr/local/include
> Marc> and -L/usr/local/lib on BSDs...
Actually, I have one reservation. This MUST be overridable by the
person running configure.
In the first place, we do want to be able to build the system without
getting influ
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 03:38:34PM +0100, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> Marc Espie, maintainer of gcc for OpenBSD, wrote:
>
> > The gcc that is the system compiler on OpenBSD is never going to look under
> > /usr/local.
>
> The same problem affects also FreeBSD and NetBSD.
This isn't specific to BSD
Akim Demaille 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?
> The point being we are *falling* back to our version of the tools, but
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> AC_LANG_CASE(
> dnl[C], AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 [CFLAGS="$CF
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >Neato.. But can we put CFLAGS="$WIN
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:51 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:54:01AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >
> >Not true if you w
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:12:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>- Original Message -
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:29 AM
>Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
>
>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:3
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:12:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >- Original Message -
> >From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wr
Robert Collins wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:35 AM
> Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
>
> >
> > AC_LANG_CASE(
> > d
- Original Message -
From: "Earnie Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert Collins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Akim Demaille" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: win32 compiler test V3a
> Robert Collins wrote:
> >
>
This should be ok now. With 2 exceptions:
the AC_REQUIRE lines were causing a problem - so I've dnl'd them barring
some feedback from a more m4 knowedgable person.
I'm a little unsure whether overriding both CPPFLAGS and CFLAGS is a
good idea, but the reason is that non automake makefile.in's ma
Well CFLAGS was the autoconf maintainers suggestion. I think I'll stick
with that, and let any individual maintainer (such as cgf :] ) use the
low level interface if they have a non-ordinary environment.
Rob
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Robert
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:56:43AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>So in a nutshell, because some packages change CFLAGS, and others change
>CC, we require everyone to change their Makefiles ?
>
>I agree that overriding CC is bad - thats why it was changed to CFLAGS.
>But CFLAGS is the standard way
Dear Autoconfiscaters:
I would like to have my package link to whatever version of a package
installed, but the names of the library files have the version in
the name, i.e. libtcl8.2.so or libtcl75.sl etc.
I could read the tcl.h header to get the version numbers, then
append that to the library
On Mar 15, 2001, Robert Boehne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could read the tcl.h header to get the version numbers, then
> append that to the library name string, but I want to query more
> expierenced users in hopes of a better way.
> Any suggestions?
tclConfig.sh
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjo
We have ranked the top ten traffic building sites on the web, these sites
have been ranked by our experts, our clients and by you our visitors. Come
to www.greatfreesite.net/bestten
One of the top ten sites, can even guarantee top placement on the top ten
search engines.
Our site has bee
[ On Thursday, March 15, 2001 at 20:19:52 (+0100), Marc Espie wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: installation instructions on OpenBSD and FreeBSD
>
> I wrote:
> > Marc> I don't have any objection to guessing at -I/usr/local/include
> > Marc> and -L/usr/local/lib on BSDs...
>
> Actually, I have one reservati
72 matches
Mail list logo
