autoconf-2.53 fails on gcc-3.0.4

2002-04-07 Thread Adam J. Richter
When I run autoconf 2.53 in gcc-3.0.4/gcc, I get configure.in:1496: error: possibly undefined macro: AS_SPARC64_FLAG This is a bug in autoconf. I think the message above should be changed to be non-fatal, since autoconf does not know that every identifier begining with AS_ is ne

Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Adam J. Richter
autoconf-2.53 does not allow AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED variables that begin with "AS_", reserving that part of the name space for autoconf m4sugar macros. I think autoconf should allow this and just issue a warning, but it would probably be a good idea to fix the gcc tree to avoid this, even if

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Adam J. Richter
Sorry, I forgot to attach the actual patch to my previous email. Adam J. Richter __ __ 4880 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 104 [EMAIL PROTECTED] \ / San Jose, California 95129-1034 +1 408 261-6630 | g g d r a s i l United States of America

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:08:30AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: > autoconf-2.53 does not allow AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED variables > that begin with "AS_", reserving that part of the name space for > autoconf m4sugar macros. I think autoconf should allow this and > just issue a warning, but it wo

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Adam J. Richter
Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen projects using macros that start >with AC_ (orbit has one, I think). That should not be a problem. Autoconf only aborts this way if it thinks you are probably trying to use an autoconf macro and a macro by that name is

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:16:19AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: > >there's no good reason for autoconf to start poaching on symbols that > >don't begin with AC_. File it as a bug in autoconf. > > Recent versions of autoconf appear to split a lot of the autconf > functionality between auto

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Dan Kegel
Thomas Dickey wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 08:08:30AM -0700, Adam J. Richter wrote: > > autoconf-2.53 does not allow AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED variables > > that begin with "AS_", reserving that part of the name space for > > autoconf m4sugar macros. I think autoconf should allow this and >

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Adam J. Richter
>there's no good reason for autoconf to start poaching on symbols that >don't begin with AC_. File it as a bug in autoconf. Recent versions of autoconf appear to split a lot of the autconf functionality between autoconf proper and "m4 sugar." I think the idea is that the m4sugar code co

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 09:33:32AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote: > Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen projects using macros that start > with AC_ (orbit has one, I think). Maybe they do this for macros > they want to propose for inclusion in autoconf. Will autoconf > choke on these, too? to be consist

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Dan Kegel writes: > Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen projects using macros that start > with AC_ (orbit has one, I think). Maybe they do this for macros > they want to propose for inclusion in autoconf. Will autoconf > choke on these, too? You're missing the point. The reason for this check is

Re: Patch: gcc-3.0.4 workaround for AS_SPARC64_FLAG/autoconf-2.53

2002-04-07 Thread Thomas Dickey
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 05:17:40PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Dan Kegel writes: > > > Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen projects using macros that start > > with AC_ (orbit has one, I think). Maybe they do this for macros > > they want to propose for inclusion in autoconf. Will autoconf > >