Hi list,
Here's what autoconf (2.13) docs say about AC_PROG_YACC :
If bison is found, set output variable YACC to `bison -y'.
Otherwise, if byacc is found, set YACC to `byacc'. Otherwise set
YACC to `yacc'.
I was wondering, if it finds neither bison nor byacc, why
Paul == Paul Eggert [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:31:18
+0200
First let's find a portable LINENO, *then* move to another shell.
Paul But the attempt to find a portable LINENO is not cost-free.
Paul It is broken now, and it will take
Hi,
I want to ask about the awk search order of autoconf. It
seems that mawk is currently preferred, since it's
generally faster. However I understand the opinion is that
gawk is a better awk than mawk, so how about making that the
first choice. In this day and age of very fast machines, I
From: Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Oct 2001 18:20:51 +0900
I want to ask about the awk search order of autoconf. It
seems that mawk is currently preferred, since it's
generally faster. However I understand the opinion is that
gawk is a better awk than mawk, so how about
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 03:41:53AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
From: Jens Petersen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Oct 2001 18:20:51 +0900
I want to ask about the awk search order of autoconf. It
seems that mawk is currently preferred, since it's
generally faster. However I understand the
David
Here's what autoconf (2.13) docs say about AC_PROG_YACC :
If bison is found, set output variable YACC to `bison -y'.
Otherwise, if byacc is found, set YACC to `byacc'. Otherwise set
YACC to `yacc'.
I was wondering, if it finds neither bison nor byacc, why
From: John Poltorak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 11:51:30 +0100
Just wondered why Autoconf insists on looking for gawk and ignores awk,
unless $AWK is set...
It doesn't ignore 'awk'; it just prefers 'gawk' if there is one.
On Solaris 8, 'awk' is old awk, and is far inferior to
I know this is a very basic question, and I hope not too off topic. I'm
new to this.
I'm looking for an example use of autoconf to optionally use a shared
library, and what to instructions to give when the library is installed in
a non-standard location. I'm wondering if there's a standard
On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 10:56:04AM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
People, the question is:
If we look for a reasonable shell and re-exec configure once
we found one, are you OK with keeping $LINENO used in
configure, even if the shell does not treat $LINENO
¾È³çÇϽʴϱî?
½Å¿ø ±×·ì ȸÀå Çö ½Â¿ø°ú ºÎȸÀå ÀÓ »ï ÀÔ´Ï´Ù.
À¯³È÷µµ ¹«´þ´ø Áö·çÇÑ ¿©¸§ÀÌ °¡°í, ¾î´À µ¡ µîÈ°¡Ä£°ú °á½ÇÀÇ °èÀýÀÌ ´Ù°¡¿Ô½À´Ï´Ù.
±Ý³â¿¡´Â ÇϽô ¸ðµç ÀÏ¿¡¼ Å« º¸¶÷À» °ÅµÎ½Ã±â¸¦ ¹Ù¶ó¸é¼, ÀÎ»ç µå¸³´Ï´Ù.
Àúȸ ½Å¿ø ±×·ìÀº Áö³ 25¿¬°£ °¢Á¾ ¼®ÀçÇ°À» »ý»êÇϴµ¥
Hi, Akim!
People, the question is:
If we look for a reasonable shell and re-exec configure once
we found one, are you OK with keeping $LINENO used in
configure, even if the shell does not treat $LINENO specially?
*And*, keep in mind the decision involves M4sh too
From: Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 05 Oct 2001 10:56:04 +0200
So am I understanding that LINENO is a POSIX feature?
Yes.
The current implementation in CVS Autoconf might be broken, but
really, I fail to understand what makes you fear the LINENO stuff that
much. Why do you say
From: Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 04 Oct 2001 17:39:04 +0200
I also forgot to say that your code could use happily AS_PATH_WALK.
OK, here's a revised patch that takes all your suggestions into
account. It's much shorter, as I decided to omit AC_PROG_SHELL for
now. This allows us
13 matches
Mail list logo
