On 09/08/14 06:24, Paul Smith wrote:
> In particular, this:
>
> configure:3666: checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler
> configure:3685: clang -c -mmacosx-version-min=10.6conftest.c >&5
> configure:3685: $? = 0
> configure:3694: result: yes
>
> Appears to show that clang is
On 09/08/2014 02:44 AM, Thomas Jahns wrote:
> On 09/08/14 06:24, Paul Smith wrote:
>> In particular, this:
>>
>> configure:3666: checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler
>> configure:3685: clang -c -mmacosx-version-min=10.6conftest.c >&5
>> configure:3685: $? = 0
>> configure:36
On 09/08/2014 07:29 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
Maybe it's as simple as patching autoconf to change the message
Thanks, good idea. I installed the attached.
>From db9a848f1042ae17ddbf85ba66a970998746a0d0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Eggert
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 09:25:08 -0700
Subject: [PATCH
On 8 September 2014 17:29, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 02:44 AM, Thomas Jahns wrote:
>> On 09/08/14 06:24, Paul Smith wrote:
>>> In particular, this:
>>>
>>> configure:3666: checking whether we are using the GNU C compiler
>>> configure:3685: clang -c -mmacosx-version-min=10.6conftes
On 09/08/2014 09:37 AM, Marko Lindqvist wrote:
Is there need to update documentation
abour $GCC to say that it should not be taken literally, but just to
mean some kind of gcc compatibility.
Thanks, good suggestion. I installed the attached patch.
>From ae3551f8d136968d18cac50810355d4160fa0427
On 09/06/2014 01:35 PM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzaGF3bmhjb3JleXxneDo1ZmI4OTE4ZGJkYzFlMDdj
That looks much nicer than what's in the Autoconf manual now. Some
thoughts:
With Firefox all I got from the above URL was a PNG ima
On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 10:35:11 -0700
Paul Eggert wrote:
> That looks much nicer than what's in the Autoconf manual now. Some
> thoughts:
>
> With Firefox all I got from the above URL was a PNG image. I assume
> SVG is somewhere but it wasn't obvious where to get it.
Oops. I thought I posted bo
On 08 Sep 2014, at 18:37 , Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> Maybe it's as simple as patching autoconf to change the message to
>> "checking whether the compiler understands GNU C extensions", to match
>> the reality of how it works these days.
>
> The $GCC example brings up another problem, though. Even
On 09/08/2014 11:36 AM, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
Which brings me to what sparked my initial mail to the list: is there somewhere
in the autoconf system a macro which gives back the compiler family of the used
compiler so that one can take some action?
That would not be The Autoconf Way. :-)
T
On 09/08/2014 12:30 PM, Shawn H Corey wrote:
>> Finally, would you be willing to assign the copyright for your
>> improvements to the Free Software Foundation, so that we could
>> install them into the Autoconf manual?
>
> The license is CC 3.0 BY-SA unported.
Thanks, but we'd prefer that it ALS
On 08 Sep 2014, at 20:57 , Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 11:36 AM, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
>> Which brings me to what sparked my initial mail to the list: is there
>> somewhere in the autoconf system a macro which gives back the compiler
>> family of the used compiler so that one can take s
Bastien Chevreux :
> Which brings me to what sparked my initial mail to the list: is there
> somewhere in the autoconf system a macro which gives back the compiler family
> of the used compiler so that one can take some action? Something which would
> set a variable (e.g. COMPILER_FAMILY) so tha
On 8 September 2014 22:34, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
> Down Under there are mammals who got pretty good at imitating duck features
> lately.
That's exactly the reason for autoconf-way:
checking for duck ... no
Configure failed! Needs to be able to swim, and you've got shark.
vs
checking f
On 08 Sep 2014, at 22:30 , Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> On 8 September 2014 22:34, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
>> Down Under there are mammals who got pretty good at imitating duck features
>> lately.
>
> That's exactly the reason for autoconf-way:
> […]
OK, before this duck thing gets a bit out of ha
On 8 September 2014 23:51, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
> On 08 Sep 2014, at 22:30 , Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> On 8 September 2014 22:34, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
>>> Down Under there are mammals who got pretty good at imitating duck features
>>> lately.
>>
>> That's exactly the reason for autoconf-w
On 08 Sep 2014, at 23:07 , Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> I'm ginving theoretical autoconf-way answer. I admit that in some
> individual cases the Right Thing(tm) might be too much work in
> practice, and the "check version number" hack is justifiable.
Indeed it may be. Delivering the source code with
On 9 September 2014 00:25, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
> On 08 Sep 2014, at 23:07 , Marko Lindqvist wrote:
>> I'm ginving theoretical autoconf-way answer. I admit that in some
>> individual cases the Right Thing(tm) might be too much work in
>> practice, and the "check version number" hack is justifi
On 08 Sep 2014, at 23:38 , Marko Lindqvist wrote:
> Maybe gcc regression test set has a bit lighter test added against
> the bug in question, added when it was fixed.
If only one knew exactly which one of the bugs or features they fixed it was.
There are dozens/hundreds, digging through all poss
Bastien Chevreux
> OK, before this duck thing gets a bit out of hand...
Oh, it's *way* too late for that :-).
> I would need to test whether the compiler accepts ?-OMG?
> AND
> I would need a way to test whether the compiler is specifically GCC (not
> clang, not icc) between 3.2.0 and 3.4.2
>
Bastien Chevreux writes:
> Would it be worthwhile to forward this to the GNU compiler maintainers
> so that they could maybe correct their course by maybe introducing a
> define which is ‘reserved’ for telling that, yes, this is indeed a GNU
> compiler?
That's what __GNUC__ was for. However, fr
On 09/09/2014 04:36 AM, Bastien Chevreux wrote:
is there somewhere in the autoconf system a macro which gives back the
compiler family of the used compiler so that one can take some action?
Something which would set a variable (e.g. COMPILER_FAMILY) so that one can
write something like this:
Bastien Chevreux writes:
> And that’s the point: as a developer of a program who uses a compiler
> just as a mean to get things done, I’m totally not interested in this …
> and I shouldn’t. It’s enough for me to know that a given compiler is
> buggy between version X and Y when a given flag is us
22 matches
Mail list logo
