[sr #110377] AC_CACHE_CHECK is affected by 's' variable override.

Follow-up Comment #3, sr #110377 (project autoconf): Indeed, that was never guaranteed to work. AC_PREPROC_IFELSE is the recommended way to write that kind of test. ___ Reply to this item at:

[sr #110377] AC_CACHE_CHECK is affected by 's' variable override.

Follow-up Comment #2, sr #110377 (project autoconf): Your fix helped, thank you! The only other tweak I had to do was to avoid here-document split across multiple expressions: AS_IF([! $CC -E -xc -

[sr #110377] AC_CACHE_CHECK is affected by 's' variable override.

Update of sr #110377 (project autoconf): Status:None => Done Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #1: Thanks for

[sr #110377] AC_CACHE_CHECK is affected by 's' variable override.

URL: <https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?110377> Summary: AC_CACHE_CHECK is affected by 's' variable override. Project: Autoconf Submitted by: slyfox Submitted on: Mon 16 Nov 2020 11:42:31 AM UTC Category

tests: avoid AC_CACHE_CHECK test failure with dash.

. OK? Thanks, Ralf tests: avoid AC_CACHE_CHECK test failure with dash. * tests/base.at (AC_CACHE_CHECK): Normalize configure exit status in presence of syntax error in sourced site file. Do not error out if configure is aborted at this point. Fixes testsuite failure with dash

Re: AC_CACHE_CHECK

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Russell Shaw wrote: Hi, When should AC_CACHE_CHECK be used? Whenever the user uninstalls something, wouldn't the cache become invalid? ...only if the user happened to uninstall something during the configure process. After that, AC_CACHE_CHECK is irrelevant. -- Thomas E

Re: AC_CACHE_CHECK

Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Russell Shaw wrote: Hi, When should AC_CACHE_CHECK be used? Whenever the user uninstalls something, wouldn't the cache become invalid? ...only if the user happened to uninstall something during the configure process. After that, AC_CACHE_CHECK

Re: AC_CACHE_CHECK

On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Russell Shaw wrote: Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Russell Shaw wrote: Hi, When should AC_CACHE_CHECK be used? Whenever the user uninstalls something, wouldn't the cache become invalid? ...only if the user happened to uninstall something during the configure

Re: AC_CACHE_CHECK

Hello, * Thomas Dickey wrote on Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:09:20PM CEST: On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Russell Shaw wrote: Thomas Dickey wrote: On Sun, 5 Sep 2010, Russell Shaw wrote: When should AC_CACHE_CHECK be used? Whenever the user uninstalls something, wouldn't the cache become invalid? ...only

AC_CACHE_CHECK

Hi, When should AC_CACHE_CHECK be used? Whenever the user uninstalls something, wouldn't the cache become invalid? ___ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

XCode 3.0 sys/types.h breaks AC_CACHE_CHECK for ac_cv_have_intxx_t

AC_CACHE_CHECK([for intXX_t types], ac_cv_have_intxx_t, [ 1590AC_TRY_COMPILE( 1591 [ #include sys/types.h ], 1592 [ int8_t a; int16_t b; int32_t c; a = b = c = 1;], 1593 [ ac_cv_have_intxx_t=yes ], 1594 [ ac_cv_have_intxx_t=no ] 1595) 1596 ]) 1597 if test x

Re: XCode 3.0 sys/types.h breaks AC_CACHE_CHECK for ac_cv_have_intxx_t

On 22-Nov-07, at 10:42 PM, Brian A. Seklecki (Mobile) wrote: Apple et all: There is a 200+ line unified diff between sys/types.h in XCode 2.5 and XCode 3.0, but no version information? # diff -u /tmp/types.h /usr/include/sys/types.h | wc -l 217 # ident /usr/include/sys/types.h

Re: Using AC_CACHE_CHECK with AC_ARG_ENABLE/AC_ARG_WITH?

([--with-foo], [use foo (default is NO)]), [ac_cv_use_foo=$withval], [ac_cv_use_foo=no]) AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether to use foo], [ac_cv_use_foo], [ac_cv_use_foo=no])]) [...], but I do not really understand what benefits

Re: Using AC_CACHE_CHECK with AC_ARG_ENABLE/AC_ARG_WITH?

([--with-foo], [use foo (default is NO)]), [ac_cv_use_foo=$withval], [ac_cv_use_foo=no]) AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether to use foo], [ac_cv_use_foo], [ac_cv_use_foo=no])]) [...], but I do not really understand what benefits

Re: Using AC_CACHE_CHECK with AC_ARG_ENABLE/AC_ARG_WITH?

], [use foo (default is NO)]), [ac_cv_use_foo=$withval], [ac_cv_use_foo=no]) AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether to use foo], [ac_cv_use_foo], [ac_cv_use_foo=no])]) I've seen this idiom of using AC_CACHE_CHECK after AC_ARG_ENABLE

Re: AC_CACHE_CHECK and complex tests

, by documenting this. Yes, I tend to agree. Let's not apply that part of the patch for now. (The quoting fixes are fine.) If you want to recommend something, I suppose you could recommend several calls to AC_CACHE_CHECK, one for each variable; the first (slow) one sets the main cache variable

Re: AC_CACHE_CHECK and complex tests

want to recommend something, I suppose you could recommend several calls to AC_CACHE_CHECK, one for each variable; the first (slow) one sets the main cache variable and the others (which are fast) key off its value. I don't think this is possible in each case, or at least it would become quite

AC_CACHE_CHECK and complex tests

be done by making CACHE-ID (the second argument of `AC_CACHE_CHECK') a list (M4 or space-separated?), or, backward-compatibly with older Autoconf versions, by an additional fourth argument (that way macros written the new style would work with older Autoconf as well), and it could allow a future

Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure

"Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Alexandre On Jan 25, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? Alexandre (ii) Since now the `loading config.site' is

Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure

| Hi, Salut Nicolas! | I just tried CVS autoconf on Tru64 unix v5.1 computer and noticed a | failure of AC_CACHE_CHECK if an autoconf site file exists in default | prefix location `/usr/local'. without this `config.site' defaults file | all tests are successful. | | njoly@medusa [~] cat /usr

Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure

Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? It sounds good to have the test suite protected from the user, but OTOH, it sounds good to have a means to check configures using the end user's config.site. I'd vote for (ii) -

Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure

On Jan 25, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? (ii) -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Red Hat GCC Developer

Re: autoconf 2.49c AC_CACHE_CHECK failure

Akim Demaille wrote: Should we (i) make sure not to use config.site in the test suite, or (ii) have this test grep out this message? I vote for not using an installed config.site, because the test suite should be self-contained and a config.site test within the testsuite should be based on