On 11/26/06, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
* Bruce Korb wrote on Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:40:07AM CET:
> Trying to make sure I'm tracking what is meant:
>
> # --
> # check for various programs used during the build.
>
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
> For 1), the attached patch seems to be enough.
It seems to have been forgotten somewhere, here it is again.
--- /usr/share/automake-1.9/depcomp 2006-09-27 03:44:18.0 +0200
+++ depcomp 2006-11-21 13:57:48.0 +0100
@@ -508,6 +508,10 @@
rm -f "$tmp
Hello,
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 07:49:14AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 11/26/06, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Bruce Korb wrote on Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 02:40:07AM CET:
> >> # --
> >> # check for various programs
On 11/27/06, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Stepan,
actually, things might be clearer if we refrain from optimization:
# First, check for runetype.h (and define HAVE_RUNETYPE_H iff it is
# found):
AC_CHECK_HEADERS([runetype.h])
# Then check for wchar.h. Amend the standard prologue
Hello all,
The AC_FUNC_SETVBUF_REVERSED macro seems to be fairly common and used in a
number of tools (ex GNU make).
The macro always fails to test the MS compiler resulting in the wrong
"#define SETVBUF_REVERSED 1", but succeed in testing gcc. In this case, both
compilers are using the same C-libr
Jerker Bäck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The macro always fails to test the MS compiler resulting in the wrong
> "#define SETVBUF_REVERSED 1", but succeed in testing gcc. In this case, both
> compilers are using the same C-library (Interix BSD LIBC). Why is that?
I haven't a clue, but I do have
