On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 07:10:25PM +0000, Gavin Smith wrote: > > After some thinking, maybe a possibility would be to recurse in C if > > either XS is enabled, --enable-additional-checks is passed or any SWIG > > interface is built, as SWIG interfaces may work and provide an > > interesting interface even if XS is disabled. > > How does the following look?
It looks good to me. The HAVE_ICONV in tta/C/Makefile.am could additionally be removed. > diff --git a/tta/Makefile.am b/tta/Makefile.am > index 2133586853..375b873463 100644 > --- a/tta/Makefile.am > +++ b/tta/Makefile.am > > It seems completely wrong that code the size of the C texi2any code > should block a successful build in cases when it is not used, as was the > case in some of the build failures reported by Bruno for texinfo-7.2.90 > (e.g the "texinfo-7.2.90 on AIX" thread). I am not so sure, this allowed to find a 'bug' and fix it. > There is one more issue which is the amount of time spent to run > the configure checks (that mostly come from gnulib) under tta/. > In texinfo-7.2, the configure.ac file for texi2any C code was under > tp/Texinfo/XS. Now it is directly under tta/, along with its own gnulib > checkout. > > Stopping the subsidiary configure script from running if texi2any C code > were disabled would require some reorganisation of the source tree, > perhaps moving tta/perl/XSTexinfo and tta/configure.ac under tta/C. > (Then we'd put the BUILD_C_CODE condition in the top-level configure.ac > etc.) I prefer to have a logical organization of the code rather than one that allows to use conditionals more easily. To me, the separation of the libraries in tta/C and the XS modules in tta/perl/XSTexinfo seems more natural. -- Pat
