| > I'm using | > | > AC_CHECK_HEADERS([ecl.h]) | > | > in configure.ac, and that gives the following in the log file | > (autoconf 2.57): | > | > configure:5067: checking ecl.h usability | > configure:5080: gcc -c -g -O2 -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c >&5 | > configure:5083: $? = 0 | > configure:5086: test -s conftest.o | > configure:5089: $? = 0 | > configure:5099: result: yes | > configure:5103: checking ecl.h presence | > configure:5114: gcc -E -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c | > configure:5120: $? = 0 | > configure:5139: result: yes | > configure:5175: checking for ecl.h | > configure:5182: result: yes | > | > It first tests whether it can compile with the header file, and | > then tests if the file exists or not. Is the second test not | > subsumed by the first one (if that one is successful)? | | The first test uses $CFLAGS and $CPPFLAGS, while the second only uses | $CPPFLAGS. If you have some -I and -D in your $CFLAGS, the results | will differ. | | (I'm not justifying the double check. I'm just saying that the second | is not entirely redundant :-)
So, this setup provides more fine-grained information in case of problems. OK - I think got it. Thanks! Frederik
