On Thursday, March 14, 2013, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 03/14/2013 06:19 PM, Zack Weinberg wrote: > > 1) What "interesting portability targets" have I left out? I only > > went back in time as far as FreeBSD 7, and I didn't even try to get my > > hands on any of the surviving proprietary Unixes; is this too > > shortsighted? > > Yes, I think so. We regularly get bug reports from people running > HP-UX, AIX, etc.
It's not going to be easy for me to scrape up one of those; it was hard enough putting a Solaris-descendant VM together. I wonder if people who do have them would be willing to run "find /usr/include -name \*.h -print" and send in the output. I think we should try to come up with a principled cutoff for how old is too old, though. I started this thinking POSIX.1-2001 (including XSI, but maybe not any other options) was a reasonable place to draw the line, but it turns out Android omits a bunch of that (and not the old junk either) so it's not so simple. "You can assume a C89 hosted environment" does still seem like a sound assertion, though. > 2) Autoconf currently probes for several of the headers in the "safely > > assumed to exist everywhere" categories, notably in > > AC_INCLUDES_DEFAULT. It seems to me that this is unnecessary. Would > > patches to remove under-the-hood checks for the ubiquitous headers, > > and deprecate macros that do explicit checks for them, be accepted? > > If it's safe to include them now, we should stop checking for them. > > > 3) It's a little tangential, but don't you think it's about time > > AC_CHECK_HEADERS stopped doing all its tests two different ways? > > I would change this, yes. > I'll see if I can find time to put some patches together. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
