On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 2:51 AM Nikolai Merinov <[email protected]> wrote: > > I already supplied this patch in March this year but did not get > feedback yet. Currently I updated patch according to actual autoconf > code. Could you please review it once again?
Thank you for reminding us about your contribution. I regret to say that this change is too risky to accept two days before the planned 2.70 release. Also, In order to accept it, we would need you to file a copyright assignment for Autoconf. If you have already done this just say so; otherwise please read and follow the instructions at https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future . Cite this patch (by URL in the autoconf-patches email archive) under "what changes have you made so far." Please also file a tracking bug for this change at https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=additem&group=autoconf so we don't forget about it again. Finally, I haven't reviewed the code in detail but I would like to see more comprehensive tests. Right now you're only testing one word in quotes in CFLAGS; blindly stripping the quotes would do the right thing. If I understand your goal correctly, you should be testing things like `configure CC="cc -std=c89"` and `CPPFLAGS="-Dfunction_like_macro(with, arguments)=..."` (put something in the ... that actually uses the arguments). Please also try to think of situations where double evaluation would do the *wrong* thing; that will help us understand the potential negative consequences of this change. zw
