Portability of shell parameter expansions (${word%pattern} and friends)?

2007-11-06 Thread Benoit Sigoure
Hi autoconfers, On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Akim Demaille wrote: Le 6 nov. 07 à 11:56, Benoit Sigoure wrote : On Nov 6, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Akim Demaille wrote: Le 3 nov. 07 à 23:10, Benoit Sigoure wrote : +# If with_boost is empty, we'll search in /lib first, which is not quite +

Re: Portability of shell parameter expansions (${word%pattern} and friends)?

2007-11-06 Thread Benoit Sigoure
On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:13:07PM CET: Anyone aware of any portability issue with shell parameter expansions? Solaris 10 /bin/sh knows neither ${foo#bar} ${foo%bar} ${#foo} Grrr, Solaris 10 is such a pain in t

Re: Portability of shell parameter expansions (${word%pattern} and friends)?

2007-11-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hello Benoit, * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:13:07PM CET: > On Nov 6, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Akim Demaille wrote: >> Le 6 nov. 07 à 11:56, Benoit Sigoure wrote : >>> >>> What, the parameter expansion ${word%pattern}? The Autoconf manual >>> doesn't say anything about it, so I guess

Re: Portability of shell parameter expansions (${word%pattern} and friends)?

2007-11-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:33:49PM CET: > > By the way, while we're at it, how portable is $((math expression))? It > also saves lots of forks compared to `expr whatever`. Same issue. You should be able to factorize likewise with shell functions, similar to Libtool's appr

Re: Command-line option processing

2007-11-06 Thread Sébastien Hinderer
Hi, > > Actually, one solution that would be even better IMHO would be to be > > able to turn this kind of warnings into errors that would make the > > configue script fail, i.e. not produce the files it normally produces > > from the .in files. Is this possible ? Does it make sense to you guys ?

Re: Portability of shell parameter expansions (${word%pattern} and friends)?

2007-11-06 Thread Akim Demaille
Le 6 nov. 07 à 15:33, Benoit Sigoure a écrit : On Nov 6, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Benoit Sigoure wrote on Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 03:13:07PM CET: Anyone aware of any portability issue with shell parameter expansions? Solaris 10 /bin/sh knows neither ${foo#bar} ${foo%bar}

minor bug on AIX

2007-11-06 Thread cross
Hi. There is a small bug in macro AC_PROG_CC on AIX. If you use this macro it gives us this output: :build-aix:root.system 16:00:04 test# cat configure.ac AC_INIT AC_PROG_CC AC_OUTPUT :build-aix:root.system 15:59:52 test# ./configure checking for gcc... no checking for cc... cc checking for C comp

Re: Possible bug in Makefile 3.81

2007-11-06 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Karl Berry on 11/6/2007 5:27 PM: [adding autoconf, since the autoconf manual likes documenting these things] > Are there still Unixen for which [ is not portable? > > Portability isn't the problem with [. It's parsing. > > [ -n "$

Re: minor bug on AIX

2007-11-06 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 11/6/2007 6:13 AM: > Hi. > There is a small bug in macro AC_PROG_CC on AIX. > If you use this macro it gives us this output: > > :build-aix:root.system 16:00:04 test# cat configure.ac > AC_INIT > AC_PROG_CC > AC_OUTPU