Hi,
I apologize that I write in two pieces again.
You often use: m4_eval(_AC_SED_CMD_NUM+1)
Are you aware of m4_incr(_AC_SED_CMD_NUM) ?
I think it's more readable, but your preferences might differ.
Yours,
Stepan
___
Autoconf mailing list
Hin
On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:37:59PM -0500, Dan Manthey wrote:
> Does anyone have any feelings on this?
> +m4_define([AS_CASE_PATTERN],
> +[m4_if($#,0,[[$0]],$#,1,[[$1 ) ]],[[$1 | ]$0(m4_shift($@))])])
Wouldn't a simple
m4_define([AS_CASE], [$1)])
serve the same purpose?
Stepan
__
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 01:01:03AM +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> I think the 'standard' way to use AC_ARG_WITH (from the packager's point of
> view) in a case such as the acl one, should be like this:
> If the user gave --without-acl, disable acl support
this is usual practice, there is not
Hi,
we all know about the following problem:
if test $enable_foo = yes; then
AC_TEST2
fi
...
AC_TEST3
If AC_TEST2 and AC_TEST3 both require AC_TEST1, then it's expanded
just before AC_TEST2, which breaaks the script in cases when
$enable_foo != yes.
Or perhaps AC_TEST3 requires AC_TEST2 and
AC_LINK_IFELSE and AC_RUN_IFELSE use the standard way for compiling the test
program.
How can I write tests using libtool?
Sincerely,
Patrick Pelissier
C est le moment de dynamiser votre boîte mail en découvrant les offres CaraMail
Max et Pro - http://www.caramail.com
_
Hi
I am trying to upgrade my autoconf from 2.57 (provided by redhat) with
2.59. Since redhat does not yet supply an rpm for this version, I am
trying to build it. I have extracted the tar.gz file, ran configure and
make. All seems OK at this point, including running make check. However,
when I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to upgrade my autoconf from 2.57 (provided by redhat) with
> 2.59. Since redhat does not yet supply an rpm for this version, I am
> trying to build it. I have extracted the tar.gz file, ran configure and
> make. All seems OK at this point, including running
Okay, hopefully this is the last version of this patch, finally.
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> > > m4_define([_AC_SED_CMDS],m4_defn([_AC_SED_CMDS])[| sed 's/|#_!!_#|//g' ])
>
> Thank you for explaining me this.
>
> This line appears twice in the source, though.
> Can't the duplication
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 08, 2005 at 02:37:59PM -0500, Dan Manthey wrote:
> > +m4_define([AS_CASE_PATTERN],
> > +[m4_if($#,0,[[$0]],$#,1,[[$1 ) ]],[[$1 | ]$0(m4_shift($@))])])
>
> Wouldn't a simple
>
> m4_define([AS_CASE], [$1)])
>
> serve the same purpose?
Yes,
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> 1) Let's introduce a macro:
>
> AC_IF(TEST, THEN-CODE, [ELSE-CODE])
>
[...]
>
> The problem with this is that it would be probably next to impossible to
> teach people to use AC_IF instead of a normal `if'.
Of course, wouldn't the people who use
Dan Manthey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is there any place that it is documented what features are
> acceptible?
http://cm.bell-labs.com/7thEdMan/
> Is the solution just to keep adding notes to the autoconf docs?
That's what we've been doing for a while; it's not perfect but it's
better than
On 2005-02-09T11:40-0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
) I am trying to upgrade my autoconf from 2.57 (provided by redhat) with
) 2.59. Since redhat does not yet supply an rpm for this version, I am
The upstream version that originally shipped with RHEL 3 is likely to remain
the only version provided
The project is a C library which uses libtool.
So it adds a (useless) detection of C++ and fortran.
So it tries to detect a c++ compiler: g++, c++, gpp, aCC, CC, cxx, cc++ and cl
The problem is that cl is not at all a C++ compiler on this system but
rather Allegro CL Trial, which is interactive.
The Autoconf manual describes the macro AC_DEFAULT_INCLUDES, but at least
as of version 2.59, it's named AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT.
-Dan
14 matches
Mail list logo
