Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

Hello, I'm afraid there are some misunderstandings here. I'll try to make things mor clear. Let's start with your very first mail: Until yesterday, the manual said: | -- Macro: AC_TYPE_INT8_T | If `stdint.h' or `inttypes.h' defines the type `int8_t', define | `HAVE_INT8_T'. Otherwise,

Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:31:56AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > I'm afraid there are some misunderstandings here. I'll try to > make things more clear. > > Let's start with your very first mail: > Until yesterday, the manual said: > > | -- Macro: AC_TYPE_INT8_T > | If `stdint.h' or `inttypes

Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

Hello, On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 11:48:42AM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote: > - I never see uint8_t (cached), and I think this is because > AC_TYPE_INT8_T uses ac_cv_c_uint8_t, whereas AC_CHECK_TYPES tests > ac_cv_type_uint8_t, yet you seem to see it - I do see it for size_t... well, I was cheatin

Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And yes, it sounds inconsistent. IMVHO the ac_cv_c_ prefix should be > changed to ac_cv_type_ here. What do others think? The former expands to an actual type (e.g., 'unsigned char') whereas the latter expands to 'yes' or 'no'. So they're not quite th

Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:48:12PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote: > And yes, it sounds inconsistent. IMVHO the ac_cv_c_ prefix should be > changed to ac_cv_type_ here. What do others think? I think that - changing ac_cv_c_ to ac_cv_type_ and - changing AC_CHECK_TYPES to test for ac_cv_type_ != no r

help with C++/Fortran linking

Hello, I think this problem is solved, but I can't seem to get it to work. I'm trying to ink a C++ program with fortran objects, but I get make[1]: Entering directory `/home/gunney/acbug/li-gcc' g77 -g -O2 -c -o fortfile.o `test -f '../acb/fortfile.f' || echo '../acb/'`../acb/fortfile.f rm -f l

socklen_t in accept() & co

I've been looking at the socklen_t mess - systems define it but do not use it, use void*length instead of socklen_t*length, and so on. Just how messy is this - is there even any point in trying to cover enough possibilities that configure can fail if it doesn't find the correct type? The followin

Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:57:57AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > IMVHO the ac_cv_c_ prefix should be changed to ac_cv_type_ here. > > The former expands to an actual type (e.g., 'unsigned char') whereas > the latter expands to 'yes' or 'no'. So they're n

Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co

Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > How does that sound? The "right" way to do it in portable C99 code is this way: #include #ifdef INT64_MAX code using int64_t #else long-winded int32_t alternative #endif If you're using Gnulib's stdint module