telling the difference between g95 and f95...

2006-02-06 Thread Ed Hartnett
Howdy all! I have a configure script which needs to know whether it is dealing with the f95 distributed with gcc-4.x, or the g95, which is apparently an independent project, which handles slightly differently. In both cases ac_cv_fc_compiler_gnu is set to yes. At the moment I am distinguishing

Re: telling the difference between g95 and f95...

2006-02-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Ed, * Ed Hartnett wrote on Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 04:42:01PM CET: I have a configure script which needs to know whether it is dealing with the f95 distributed with gcc-4.x, or the g95, which is apparently an independent project, which handles slightly differently. What are the differences

Splint

2006-02-06 Thread Roesner, Thomas
Dear all, is there a macro to enable (sp)lint checking within autoconf/automake? Kind Regards Thomas Roesner ___ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

autotools cookbook needed

2006-02-06 Thread John Calcote
You know, I've recently finished reading the manuals for m4, libtool, autoconf, and automake. After 1000 pages of reading, I was frustrated to walk away knowing very little more than I started with. I believe this is primarily due to the lack of examples and background context in the explanations

Re: autotools cookbook needed

2006-02-06 Thread Matt Hull
ill second that. autoconf is that bad. i havent written any m4 scripts though. and couldnt get automake to work. matt On Mon, 6 Feb 2006, John Calcote wrote: You know, I've recently finished reading the manuals for m4, libtool, autoconf, and automake. After 1000 pages of reading, I was

debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread John Calcote
Generally, when I build with the DEBUG macro defined, it's because I want to step through a portion of my code with the debugger. However, I've noticed that using AC_PROG_CC sets CFLAGS to -g -O2 on GCC - and tries to use similar options on other compilers. I really like the use of this

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Howard Chu
John Calcote wrote: Generally, when I build with the DEBUG macro defined, it's because I want to step through a portion of my code with the debugger. However, I've noticed that using AC_PROG_CC sets CFLAGS to -g -O2 on GCC - and tries to use similar options on other compilers. I really like

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Brian Dessent
John Calcote wrote: Generally, when I build with the DEBUG macro defined, it's because I want to step through a portion of my code with the debugger. However, I've noticed that using AC_PROG_CC sets CFLAGS to -g -O2 on GCC - and tries to use similar options on other compilers. -g -O2 is

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Andreas Schwab
John Calcote [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question: Anyone know of a good idiom for managing optimization flags - including disabling the obligatory -O2 placed in CFLAGS by AC_PROG_CC? .../configure CFLAGS=-g Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH,

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Harlan Stenn
My question: Anyone know of a good idiom for managing optimization flags - including disabling the obligatory -O2 placed in CFLAGS by AC_PROG_CC? .../configure CFLAGS=-g This sucks too - it means one has to do separate configure runs for debug, production, profiled, etc. builds It would be

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Howard Chu
Andreas Schwab wrote: John Calcote [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question: Anyone know of a good idiom for managing optimization flags - including disabling the obligatory -O2 placed in CFLAGS by AC_PROG_CC? .../configure CFLAGS=-g That may be a clean approach, but running configure is slow

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Harlan Stenn wrote: My question: Anyone know of a good idiom for managing optimization flags - including disabling the obligatory -O2 placed in CFLAGS by AC_PROG_CC? .../configure CFLAGS=-g This sucks too - it means one has to do separate configure runs for debug,

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Harlan Stenn
If it sucks, it seems to be exceedingly minor suckage to me since you can have as many build trees as you want using one source tree. Sometimes it is easier to go with the flow. You have clearly not spent much time with large auto*-based build systems. I'm talking about software packages

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Harlan Stenn wrote: If it sucks, it seems to be exceedingly minor suckage to me since you can have as many build trees as you want using one source tree. Sometimes it is easier to go with the flow. You have clearly not spent much time with large auto*-based build systems.

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Russell Shaw
John Calcote wrote: Generally, when I build with the DEBUG macro defined, it's because I want to step through a portion of my code with the debugger. However, I've noticed that using AC_PROG_CC sets CFLAGS to -g -O2 on GCC - and tries to use similar options on other compilers. I really like

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Bob Rossi
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 01:37:14AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote: John Calcote [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My question: Anyone know of a good idiom for managing optimization flags - including disabling the obligatory -O2 placed in CFLAGS by AC_PROG_CC? .../configure CFLAGS=-g Just out of

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Harlan Stenn
.../configure CFLAGS=-g Just out of curiosity, is this different than 'CFLAGS=-g ./configure ...'? I do this all the time and wonder if your way is somehow better. With configure CFLAGS=-g, configure knows you are overriding CFLAGS and will put that information into config.status. If you

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Brian Dessent
Bob Rossi wrote: Just out of curiosity, is this different than 'CFLAGS=-g ./configure ...'? I do this all the time and wonder if your way is somehow better. If you happen to run into a package using older 2.13 autoconf, you have to use the CFLAGS=foo ./configure. Otherwise you get this: $

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Brian Dessent
Harlan Stenn wrote: With configure CFLAGS=-g, configure knows you are overriding CFLAGS and will put that information into config.status. If you use CFLAGS=-g ./configure, then configure doesn't see that you have overridden CFLAGS. Or something like that. No, they should result in

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Harlan Stenn
$ diff -u {build1,build2}/Makefile As you can see the Makefiles are identical and the config.statuses differ by only one insignificant whitespace. Cool! That didn't used to be the case, as I remember from the docs. I do remember (perhaps incorrectly) that the difference was apparent when

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Brian Dessent
Harlan Stenn wrote: That didn't used to be the case, as I remember from the docs. I do remember (perhaps incorrectly) that the difference was apparent when running config.status --recheck. I am sure there is more to it that I am not aware of. Otherwise, there would be no controversy.

Re: debug builds with NO optimizations

2006-02-06 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Brian Dessent wrote on Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 05:09:19AM CET: Harlan Stenn wrote: That didn't used to be the case, as I remember from the docs. I do remember (perhaps incorrectly) that the difference was apparent when running config.status --recheck. I am sure there is more to it