Hello, * Stepan Kasal wrote on Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 02:41:48PM CEST: > On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:09:49PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Bruno Haible wrote on Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:05:26PM CEST: > > What about introducing > AC_LANG_BOOL_COMPILE_IFELSE(prologue, bool-expr, if-true, if-false) > > as a public macro? (We would document that it is implemented only for > the three C languages.)
Probably a good idea. > > But that public version would have to include the cast to long int, > > for the HP compiler, which would be at least a bit ugly. > > Ralf, could you please give me a reference to the problem? See the comment in the implementation of AC_CHECK_SIZEOF. > (My naive opinion is that we should not give up the clean API for > a problem with a particular vedor.) IMHO that's the wrong way around. Autoconf is all about existing limitations and bugs, and its API tries to capture or wrap what is portably possible. I wonder though whether casting an expression of some integer type that is either true or false, to long int is really a limitation (but maybe I remember the problem wrongly). > But I wonder whether it is worth it to have a special name for a > trivial and natural combination of two macros. > Perhaps AC_CACHE_CHECK_INT could be dropped? * Paul Eggert wrote on Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 11:23:53PM CEST: > > It is a close call. It does capture a common pattern, which is used > twice within Autoconf itself and could be used in Gnulib (in the > stdint module). But if there's sentiment to drop it, now's the time. FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion either way. Cheers, Ralf
