Re: Detailed structure checks

2008-11-29 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 07:22:06AM CET: Tim Post wrote: Thank you. I'm not sure how I could have missed that. Autoconf is probably one of the best documented projects available .. the manual is so massive that sometimes its easy to get lost :) I

Re: Detailed structure checks

2008-11-29 Thread Tim Post
Hi Peter, On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 00:22 -0600, Peter O'Gorman wrote: Tim Post wrote: Hi Eric, On Thu, 2008-11-27 at 20:53 -0700, Eric Blake wrote: AC_CHECK_MEMBERS does what you want. Thank you. I'm not sure how I could have missed that. Autoconf is probably one of the best

Re: Detailed structure checks

2008-11-29 Thread Tim Post
On Sat, 2008-11-29 at 09:39 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Best would probably be something that generates automatically from the manual or the m4 source files, so that keeping it up to date doesn't involve remembering another location. Hmm, the indices like

we might need a better name for ac_nonexistent.h

2008-11-29 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Witness: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-10/msg00293.html I don't know what to suggest, though. ac_this_header_should_not_exist_so_an_error_about_it_is_expected.h? Or maybe a fix is overkill. Sorry for the noise, Ralf

Re: we might need a better name for ac_nonexistent.h

2008-11-29 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Ralf Wildenhues on 11/29/2008 11:02 AM: Witness: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2008-10/msg00293.html In other words, the user honed in on the first compilation error, rather than the one that mattered. I don't know what to suggest,