On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 11:41:10AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote: > Yeah, they're generated by autoconf, from a pretty readable > configure.in file. > > Just to be clear, I am not advocating autoconf+automake. I don't > think we need that.
Ack. > On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 01:48:33AM -0400, Corey Osgood wrote: > > > At the very least the message is not clear enough. > > > > I've seen this too, where I had a compiler installed but forgot to > > set CC or link it to gcc or some such thing. Wouldn't the more > > correct workaround be to do a compiler check? > > Yes, that's what I'm thinking too. I am pieceing something together > with parts of coresystems' xcompile script. :) Uh, I'd say this is overkill. Personally I prefer keeping the check in the Makefile (if at all). An extra script might make sense if there are _lots_ of _verbose_ and complicated tests, but we're far away from that. Adding yet another file just doesn't make much sense and is not really useful either, IMO. Uwe. -- http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
