> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 9:51 PM, Stelian Ionescu <sione...@cddr.org> wrote: > > We really really are at the point where we need to have a > > configure-style script run before anything and detect CPU/OS features. > > What's your proposal in this case? Try and compile a single program > that prints FFI_UNIX64 and if it fails to compile assume the constant > is not defined? Is that how configure does it? Did you mean something > else?
Yes, that's how autotools deals with that case: each test gets generated to a separate file and then compiled. That's the reason why people find autoconf-generated configure scripts to be slow: they invoke the compiler for almost every single test, but it's also what makes it robust. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
