Hello there,
having used gcc for ages, I decided to try and play around with clang for one
of my C/C++ projects. Unfortunately, it looks as if autoconf 2.69 gets things
horribly wrong with clang.
I’m literally forcing it to find only clang, but it still insists on trying to
tell me I’m running
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 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
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
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 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
On 09 Sep 2014, at 1:33 , Peter Johansson wrote:
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 s
