Doesn't make sense, that would be a noop (unless $apr_cvname is used in the
true/false condition).
Somewhere you nested something oddly. I worked around nesting with my last
patch to this logic for the purpose of this specific macro, but in many
other autoconf cases, true/false (as we used to do) don't evaluate as you
might expect them to.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 11:49 AM Yann Ylavic <ylavic....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:28 PM William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>
> wrote:
> > +checking whether int64_t and int use fmt %d... checking whether int64_t
> and long use fmt %ld... yes
> > +no
>
> "yes" for %ld and "no" for %d, in stack order?
>
> Possibly it would print better with:
>
> Index: build/apr_common.m4
> ===================================================================
> --- build/apr_common.m4 (revision 1856042)
> +++ build/apr_common.m4 (working copy)
> @@ -995,9 +995,9 @@ APR_TRY_COMPILE_NO_WARNING([#include <sys/types.h>
> ptr1 = &chk2;
> *ptr1 = *ptr2 = 0;
> printf("%$3 %$3", chk1, chk2);
> -], [apr_cvname=yes
> -$4], [apr_cvname=no
> -$5])])
> +], [$4
> +apr_cvname=yes], [$5
> +apr_cvname=no])])
> ])
>
> dnl
> --
>
