On Friday 19 July 2013, Felix Salfelder wrote: > > 2. It does lots of tests that seem irrelevant, to the > > extent that if something really is wrong it will often be > > buried by the clutter. I don't see any place where those > > tests were requested. It seems that autotools ALWAYS does > > this, everywhere. It checks for C headers that gnucap > > doesn't use, and doesn't check for the C++ headers that > > gnucap does use. What really bothers me about this is that > > I could not find where such tests were requested. > > yes, there are a lot of tests, none of which looks extremely > superfluous... but i can have a look, can you suggest a test > to start? > > if it should check for c++ headers that it currently doesnt, > maybe "autoscan" can help. autoscan reads throught the > source code and (nondestructively) writes out everything > that might be useful (to configure.scan iirc).
I was commenting on the inconsistency of explicitly checking lots of stuff that is not used, while not checking for the ones that ARE used. Also, that I did not see in configure.ac where those tests were requested, which indicates that autoconf is not doing what the config files tell it to do. That brings up a lesson I learned may years ago, the hard way ..... Magic behavior is bad. Over the years, I have run into cases where programs failed to build because of those irrelevant tests. I could see "checking for a proper build environment", and if it isn't a detailed message to guide in fixing it. I see no harm in leaving out the whole thing. It looks like we are stuck with it. That's unfortunate but it looks like we must go with it. _______________________________________________ Gnucap-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucap-devel
