> "Adam" == Adam J Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> autoconf-2.53 does not allow AC_DEFINE_UNQUOTED variables that
Adam> begin with "AS_", reserving that part of the name space for
Adam> autoconf m4sugar macros. I think autoconf should allow this and
Adam> just issue a warning, bu
> "Dan" == Dan Kegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> Also, I'm pretty sure I've seen projects using macros that start
Dan> with AC_ (orbit has one, I think). Maybe they do this for macros
Dan> they want to propose for inclusion in autoconf. Will autoconf
Dan> choke on these, too?
No it w
> "Thomas" == Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> sure there is - if they happen to have the same name as one of
Thomas> autoconf's macros, the attempt at redefinition will be
Thomas> ignored.
Of course not.
Thomas> (caveat - I'm recalling this from 2.13 - haven't felt the nee
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or tell Autoconf that this token is valid.
>
>m4_patten_allow([^AS_SPARC64_FLAG$])
>
>See the documentation.
Developers use autoconf to save their valuable time, so please
apply the following patch that mentions m4_pattern_allow in the
message tha
| Running autoheader for a second time does not generate these
| warnings--is this autom4te?
Yes. This is the remainder of a discussion that never really ended.
autom4te is here to cache, so it looses some side effects, such as
warnings. We could fight to have them cached too, but I don't know
> "Adam" == Adam J Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> 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).
Adam> That should not be a problem. Autoconf only aborts this way
Adam> if it thinks
Title: DPR Korea Lotto
www.dprkoreacasino.com more detail . . [ Chinese ] [ Japanese ] [ Korean ]
Hello,
We have opened the new real Internet casino site which is the most fair.
Please register right after seeing
> "Patrick" == Patrick Hartling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Patrick> So I can't have a configure.in that works with 2.13 and 2.5x?
Sure you can.
On 8 Apr 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Thomas" == Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Thomas> sure there is - if they happen to have the same name as one of
> Thomas> autoconf's macros, the attempt at redefinition will be
> Thomas> ignored.
>
> Of course not.
>
> Thomas> (caveat -
> "Thomas" == Thomas E Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Thomas> to reopen the wound since 2.5x adds salt).
>> 2.13 died on it. That's very different.
Thomas> no - 2.13 ignored it (I noticed this when I was making the
Thomas> macro for the prereq).
Actually, YMMV. It depdends how `lucky'
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:58:13AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > > "Patrick" == Patrick Hartling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Patrick> So I can't have a configure.in that works with 2.13 and 2.5x?
> >
> > Sure you can.
>
> it's just that yo
On 8 Apr 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> > "Patrick" == Patrick Hartling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Patrick> So I can't have a configure.in that works with 2.13 and 2.5x?
>
> Sure you can.
it's just that you cannot count on that happening without some effort.
--
T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:44:44AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> > On 8 Apr 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, YMMV. It depdends how `lucky' you were. Given that the
> > > name of the macro to be defined was not quoted, the macro was
Hello!
I'm trying once more with this question (just rephrasing it).
Is it possible to have the ac tool to check against another lib
than the gcc lib when configuring an application.
As I've written before I have a problem with net-snmp which checks
for include-files and functions against the com
> "Adam" == Adam J Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Adam> Developers use autoconf to save their valuable time, so please
Adam> apply the following patch that mentions m4_pattern_allow in the
Adam> message that autoconf prints out. In general, I think you will
Adam> find that it will sav
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 08:44:44AM -0400, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> > Actually, YMMV. It depdends how `lucky' you were. Given that the
> > name of the macro to be defined was not quoted, the macro was
> > expanded. In typical cases, it gave more argument
On 8 Apr 2002, Akim Demaille wrote:
> Actually, YMMV. It depdends how `lucky' you were. Given that the
> name of the macro to be defined was not quoted, the macro was
> expanded. In typical cases, it gave more argument to define than 2,
> hence an error.
not really (I generally quote the argu
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:08:28AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> | Running autoheader for a second time does not generate these
> | warnings--is this autom4te?
>
> Yes. This is the remainder of a discussion that never really ended.
> autom4te is here to cache, so it looses some side effects,
On 14 Mar 2002, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you contribute the text itself? TIA!
Yes, I'd be happy to help.
I can't promise that the solution outlined below works everywhere, but
it has been tested on a number of unix-like platforms and seems to be
OK. I suppose at least m
> From: Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 21:30:57 +0100
>
> If I write a macro that I want to work with several autoconf versions,
> is there any way I can special-case what to do when run with a specific
> version.
This is almost surely the wrong way to go. The whole poi
20 matches
Mail list logo
