Re: Preferring a specific compiler?

2005-06-01 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hi, On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 12:55:31PM -0700, Dan Stromberg wrote: > ...but it's not finding tcc. Perhaps it's looking for a program called > "tcc -b", and not a program called "tcc" with a "-b" argument? No, it should look for tcc. Does the following work: AC_CHECK_PROGS(FOO1, ["tcc -b

Re: autoconf macro for gcc symbol visibility

2005-06-01 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* J.T. Conklin wrote on Tue, May 31, 2005 at 08:37:44PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > * J.T. Conklin wrote on Sun, May 29, 2005 at 07:34:46PM CEST: > >> Does anyone have a macro for testing gcc's symbol visibility options > >> (-fvisibility=hidden, etc.)? The ACE/TAO auto

please correct my ugly hack

2005-06-01 Thread Claudio Fontana
Hello, I am trying to put checks for available programs in a for loop in a configure.ac script. My first attempt was: for NAME in cp du mv rm sh su mkdir rmdir bunzip2 bzip2 compress gunzip gzip tar unzip zip do AC_PATH_PROG($NAME, $NAME, [no]) done This does not work, so I wrote thi

Re: please correct my ugly hack

2005-06-01 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello Claudio, On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 07:39:58AM -0700, Claudio Fontana wrote: > for NAME in cp du mv rm sh su mkdir rmdir bunzip2 > bzip2 compress gunzip gzip tar unzip zip > do > AC_PATH_PROG($NAME, $NAME, [no]) > done The problem with is that the AC_*PROG macros expect a literal a

Re: please correct my ugly hack

2005-06-01 Thread Paul Eggert
Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think that the patch which would put AS_VAR_* to programs.m4 would > present a useful general improvement. > > Paul, would you accept such a patch? That sounds good to me, yess. > I think the best solution is to drop caching from programs.m4. You can

Re: please correct my ugly hack

2005-06-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius
On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 18:33 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > I think the best solution is to drop caching from programs.m4. Only over my dead body ;-) > Caching was invented mainly for expensive tests which involve > calling a compiler, which can be really slow. No, caching had been invented for fast

Re: please correct my ugly hack

2005-06-01 Thread Dan Manthey
On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 18:33 +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > > > I think the best solution is to drop caching from programs.m4. > Only over my dead body ;-) > > > Caching was invented mainly for expensive tests which involve > > calling a compiler, which can