On Oct 9, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently I can't think of any good one. In addition, I now think it > is now feasible to merge *_CPP in *_CC as I first thought, not without > revamping a lot of code which is a big no before 2.50. How hard do you think it would be to allow for AC_REQUIRE to accept arguments for the macro to be called? -- 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
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Peter Eisentraut
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Morten Eriksen
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Pavel Roskin
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Peter Eisentraut
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Pavel Roskin
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Alexandre Oliva
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Morten Eriksen
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Thomas E. Dickey
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Bob Friesenhahn
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Gary V. Vaughan
- Re: AC_PROG_CC not working Akim Demaille
