Hi!
On Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:37:16 +0100, I wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:09:33 +0100, I wrote:
> > Also known as: »I found another one«.
>
> (That's the last one I'm currently seeing.) Again depending on
> usability, we either get:
>
> checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89... none n
Hi!
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:34:09 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> For libc, I think always using $CC -E is fine. You don't need to bother
> with the MSG_CHECKING and CACHE_VAL boilerplate.
Ah, I thought the caching was required to have config.status' --recheck
do the right thing. Which actually
Hi!
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:09:33 +0100, I wrote:
> Also known as: »I found another one«.
(That's the last one I'm currently seeing.) Again depending on
usability, we either get:
checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89... none needed
Or:
checking for [GCC] option to accept ISO C89
Hi!
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:18:41 +, "Joseph S. Myers"
wrote:
> Really, for glibc bootstrapping I don't think you want to include any
> headers there. If $CPP is defined and nonempty, use that, otherwise use
> $CC -E; no testing for a "working" preprocessor is needed; we require GCC
> 4.3
Hi!
Also known as: »I found another one«.
As we already know, glibc's configure script is in a difficult position
in that it uses "standard Autoconf", but its tests shall not depend on
any functionality (for example, system headers) that is to be supplied by
the glibc we're about to build. In re
