> From: Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 05 Oct 2001 10:56:04 +0200 > > So am I understanding that LINENO is a POSIX feature?
Yes. > The current implementation in CVS Autoconf might be broken, but > really, I fail to understand what makes you fear the LINENO stuff that > much. Why do you say it is broken? What is the *current* problem? The latest problem is what happens when you type control-C when you are generating configure.lineno. My guess is that there will be more problems. > Raja says it works fine on Solaris 8. I'm referring to CVS Autoconf, > of course. After I checked in a regenerated 'configure', I think it probably works on Solaris 8 if your environment is OK. But I suspect we'll run into more problems later, as people run it with different environment variables, or on different hosts. > People, the question is: > > If we look for a reasonable shell and re-exec configure once > we found one, are you OK with keeping $LINENO used in > configure, even if the shell does not treat $LINENO specially? I don't quite understand the question as worded. Here's how I would word the question: Suppose we change "configure" so that, if invoked with a shell that does not support LINENO, it first looks for a shell that supports LINENO and re-executes "configure" with that shell. This should avoid the LINENO problem on all major operating systems shipped in the last seven years or so. (SunOS 4.1.4, the last major holdout, shipped in November 1994.) If we do this, is it still worth the aggravation of maintaining code to substitute LINENO ourselves, for older hosts like SunOS 4.1.4 that have no shell that supports LINENO? The advantage of substituting for LINENO is that "configure" failures will have nice-looking line numbers even on older hosts. This advantage applies only when "configure" fails. The disadvantage is that the LINENO-substituting code does not work in all cases now, will hardly ever be exercised, and will probably continue to have bugs indefinitely.
