On Aug 7, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you saying you are looking for a 2.13 and 2.50 compatible
> solution? Why?
Because we're not switching to CVS autoconf right now.
> Really, I dislike macros which change some state, and change the
> semantics of other macros.
I don't have a problem with that, as long as it's clean enough.
AC_NO_EXECUTABLES seems clean enough to me.
> For one, it makes --trace lie. We'd better find exactly what is the
> grain you need, and provide the equivalent macros.
Problem is that there are several macros that
AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC]), and AC_PROG_CC does all the work, part of
which we don't want.
> What do you dislike in my proposal?
It doesn't look simple enough to me. It looks too much like
``internals of autoconf'' to me; we shouldn't have code like that in
GCC's aclocal.m4/configure.in.
> It's basically the same, but more Autoconf like, and more scalable.
Not if you want to do it with multiple languages and one extender
doesn't know about the other. Think of doing
define([AC_TRY_LINK_ORIGINAL],defn([AC_TRY_LINK])) multiple times.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
