Hello,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:38:25AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Is this a bug in autoconf?
yes, this is a bug in autoconf. It is well known, and it'll be fixed in
Autoconf 3, in a distant future...
The problem is misinteraction between the two layers of autoconf, the m4
expansion and the sh
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:38:25AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Is this a bug in autoconf?
yes, this is a bug in autoconf. It is well known, and it'll be fixed in
Autoconf 3, in a distant future...
...perhaps in an alternate universe as well.
no
Hi,
Sorry for all the questions lately, it's just, some of them I don't see
an easy answer for in the manual. If there is an easy answer to this
question, maybe I'll append a small example to the manual.
I already use, AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS to configure the readline subpackage.
However, by default th
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 10:01:46AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 07:38:25AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > Is this a bug in autoconf?
>
> yes, this is a bug in autoconf. It is well known, and it'll be fixed in
> Autoconf 3, in a distant future...
OK, Thanks. Is th
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Bob Rossi wrote:
I already use, AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS to configure the readline subpackage.
However, by default the readline library builds both shared and static
libraries.
--enable-shared build shared libraries [default=YES]
--enable-static build static libra
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 05:01:52AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>Autoconf 3, in a distant future...
>
> ...perhaps in an alternate universe as well.
>
> noting the occasional references to autoconf 3, I haven't seen any code.
AFAIK, Autoconf 3 was not started yet. (Obviously, most of the c
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:39:31AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> [...] Is there at least a way to detect this bug when running
> autoconf to alert the user of a possible problem?
I don't have any idea.
Sorry,
Stepan Kasal
___
Autoconf mai
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:50:08AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Is there a way to pass in --disable-shared to the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS?
I looked into the source (status.m4, general.m4), and it seems that all
--enable-*
arguments are propagated to the subconfigures.
Thus --disable-shared should
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:50:08AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
Is there a way to pass in --disable-shared to the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS?
I looked into the source (status.m4, general.m4), and it seems that all
--enable-*
arguments are propagated to the
output tells me to "report this bug".
done.
cheers, mirko.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /priv/d022609/lib/cscope-15-5
$ gcc --version
2.95.2
$ uname -a -p
AIX is18d1 2 5 00CB02AE4C00 powerpc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /priv/d022609/lib/cscope-15-5
$ ./configure --prefix=/priv/d022609/lib/cscope-15-5
checking for
Hi,
I just did get the following warning
---
checking for limits.h... yes
checking sys/ptem.h usability... no
checking sys/ptem.h presence... yes
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: present but cannot be compiled
configure: WARNING: sys/ptem.h: check for missing prerequisite headers?
configure: WARN
Berkley db changed prototypes for functions that are struct members.
how do I check for that?
here is what I have been able to come up with so far:
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether DB->stat() accepts TXNid],ac_cv_db_stat_accept_txn,[
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([#include ],
[[DB db; db->stat(db,0,N
Sam Steingold wrote:
Berkley db changed prototypes for functions that are struct members.
how do I check for that?
here is what I have been able to come up with so far:
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether DB->stat() accepts TXNid],ac_cv_db_stat_accept_txn,[
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([#include ],
> * David Boreham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-14 08:42:46 -0700]:
>
> Sam Steingold wrote:
>
>>Berkley db changed prototypes for functions that are struct members.
>>how do I check for that?
>>
>>here is what I have been able to come up with so far:
>>
>>AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether DB->stat() accepts
when I pass a function with a wrong signature as a callback, I get just
a warning from gcc, so the compile succeeds and the test is wrong:
AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether DB_ENV->set_errcall() accepts DBE],
ac_cv_dbe_set_errcall_accept_dbe,[
AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([#include
void my_callback (
Sam Steingold wrote:
I want it to be error because I cannot pass
void my_callback (const DB_ENV* dbe, const char *errpfx, const char *msg);
instead of
void my_callback (const char *errpfx, char *msg);
so: how do I turn the warning into a failed compilation?
(the result: above should be "no", no
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
Sam Steingold wrote:
I want it to be error because I cannot pass
void my_callback (const DB_ENV* dbe, const char *errpfx, const char *msg);
instead of
void my_callback (const char *errpfx, char *msg);
so: how do I turn the warning into a failed com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Sam Steingold writes:
>so: how do I turn the warning into a failed compilation?
>(the result: above should be "no", not "yes")
Well, you could pass -Werror to the compiler, if its gcc.
Perhaps you could save CFLAGS, append -Werror, run your test, and then
restore the previous
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
This approach only works with GCC and will cripple building most software.
I wasn't suggest adding it to the CFLAGS used to build the application,
only for running the test the OP asked about. But that's true, it would
be GCC specific.
__
It depends on what you're trying to check for. If all you're trying
to check is whether a particular form of call will work, then check
that form of call (as you have). If you want to check for the exact
signature, though, then I'd take the address of the function pointer
and assign it to a point
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 04:57:06PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 09:50:08AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > Is there a way to pass in --disable-shared to the AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS?
>
> I looked into the source (status.m4, general.m4), and it seems that all
> --enable-*
On Thu, Jul 14, 2005 at 12:23:21PM -0400, Sam Steingold wrote:
> when I pass a function with a wrong signature as a callback, I get just
> a warning from gcc, so the compile succeeds and the test is wrong:
>
> AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether DB_ENV->set_errcall() accepts DBE],
> ac_cv_dbe_set_errcall_acce
22 matches
Mail list logo
