Well, for a start I'm applying this part of my patch. I don't think
we need to debate about it, it is straight forward.
Index: ChangeLog
from Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* acheaders.m4 (AC_CHECK_HEADER, AC_CHECK_HEADERS): Support $4 =
INCLUDES.
Index: NEWS
| Index: ChangeLog
| from Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| * acheaders.m4 (AC_CHECK_HEADER, AC_CHECK_HEADERS): Support $4 =
| INCLUDES.
This is the next step.
I'm applying it, because it needs to be tested but real people.
Please, note that there is something *very* new happ
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:42:47PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> This case is catered to by the usual trick of '#define vfork fork' if
> a working vfork is not available.
except that the existing test doesn't check if vfork is already #define'd
in a header file.
--
Thomas E. Dickey <[EMAIL PROTEC
>--[Paul Eggert]--<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I don't think the uses are portable.
> > Wait, why not?
> The latest POSIX draft says this:
> [...]
Okay.
> > And if they aren't, would it be okay to change the
> > HAVE_WORKING_VFORK to !HAVE_WORKING_FORK?
> No. For AC_FUNC_WAIT3 and AC_SYS_RESTART
This is what I mean. Just sample.
Waiting for comments.
Index: ChangeLog
from Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* acfunctions.m4 (AC_FUNC_CHOWN, AC_FUNC_CLOSEDIR_VOID)
(AC_FUNC_GETPGRP, AC_FUNC_LSTAT_FOLLOWS_SLASHED_SYMLINK)
(AC_FUNC_MMAP, AC_FUNC_SELECT_ARGTYPES, _AC
Pavel Roskin wrote:
>
> Hello, Ralf!
Hi Pavel,
> > > How about merging AC_PROG_CPP and AC_PROG_CC together?
> > >
> > > What's the point of keeping the two of them?
> > * Some tools (eg. imake) apply cpp as macro-processor, even if cc is
> > not available on a particular install
[Cc to Autoconf, since it does matter.]
> "Alexander" == Alexander Mai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[Extending missing as opposed to playing with `help2man --version`.]
>> I insist. That's the way to go.
Alexander> That's the #%@! attitude of all those auto* coders: they
Alexander> belie
Hi,
please take the time to read fully, perhaps in the evening ... :-)
Hu, noticed after writing it's a public Cc:, ok, the rest may know that
Akim and I know each other from quite some emails we exchanged earlier
(e.g. WRT a2ps)
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 01:50:30PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 04:43:19PM +0200, Peter Simons wrote:
: At least the following two pages have links to the old URL:
:
: - http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/
fixed
Lars J
Hi everybody,
finally, the autoconf archive made it to the official gnu.org web
server. It is now available at:
http://www.gnu.org/software/ac-archive/
The old location will re-direct requests to the new URL for a while,
but I'd humbly ask everybody to update the links on their pages to the
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 11:52:36 +0200
> I don't see why the AC_FUNC_WAIT3 test relies on the parent running at the
> same time
You're right; I got confused by the 'sleep' in the child, and assumed
that it was checking for a race condition. But on second thought tha
Hello, Ralf!
[I'm dropping [EMAIL PROTECTED] since the discussion concentrates on
Autoconf.]
> > Testing the preprocessor without
> > testing for a working compiler is reasonable, but in many cases "$CC -E"
> > is preferred over /lib/cpp, so it's a good idea to test for the compiler
> > anyways.
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> [Extending missing as opposed to playing with `help2man
Akim> --version`.]
You're gonna laugh Alexander...
The including `missing' had already help2man support, and Autoconf's
configure.in was already ready to have it work properly
%% Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
pe> However, this point is somewhat academic. Nobody uses wait3
pe> anymore. (Well, that's not quite true: I just checked all the GNU
pe> programs we have here, and Bash uses wait3 if waitpid does not
pe> exist -- but Bash doesn't care whether
> From: "Paul D. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 13 Jun 2001 15:03:41 -0400
>
> pe> However, this point is somewhat academic. Nobody uses wait3
> pe> anymore
>
> GNU make uses wait3() if waitpid() doesn't exist, as well.
Sorry, I missed that, because I was looking only for instances
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 02:17:32PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > From: Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 15:02:58 -0400
> >
> > you can get away with:
> > #define a b
> > (or the equivalent using true functions) only if a()'s behaviour
> > is a strict subset
On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:42:47PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:07:55 +0200
> > This leads to four(!) different cases:
> > [...]
> > * fork(), that should be a fork() if possible, but if not available,
> >a vfork() should do the job as
> From: Eric Siegerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 17:29:52 -0400
>
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2001 at 07:42:47PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:07:55 +0200
> > > * fork(), that should be a fork() if possible, but if not availabl
On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 03:28:41PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > > > Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 00:07:55 +0200
> > > > * fork(), that should be a fork() if possible, but if not available,
> > > >a vfork() should do the job as well
> > >
> > > I don't see why this case would ever happen in real c
19 matches
Mail list logo
