Re: superfluous test in AC_CHECK_HEADERS?
Hi, Frederik Fouvry [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm using AC_CHECK_HEADERS([ecl.h]) in configure.ac, and that gives the following in the log file (autoconf 2.57): configure:5067: checking ecl.h usability configure:5080: gcc -c -g -O2 -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c 5 configure:5083: $? = 0 configure:5086: test -s conftest.o configure:5089: $? = 0 configure:5099: result: yes configure:5103: checking ecl.h presence configure:5114: gcc -E -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c configure:5120: $? = 0 configure:5139: result: yes configure:5175: checking for ecl.h configure:5182: result: yes It first tests whether it can compile with the header file, and then tests if the file exists or not. Is the second test not subsumed by the first one (if that one is successful)? The first test uses $CFLAGS and $CPPFLAGS, while the second only uses $CPPFLAGS. If you have some -I and -D in your $CFLAGS, the results will differ. (I'm not justifying the double check. I'm just saying that the second is not entirely redundant :-) - Hari -- Raja R Harinath -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: superfluous test in AC_CHECK_HEADERS?
| I'm using | | AC_CHECK_HEADERS([ecl.h]) | | in configure.ac, and that gives the following in the log file | (autoconf 2.57): | | configure:5067: checking ecl.h usability | configure:5080: gcc -c -g -O2 -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c 5 | configure:5083: $? = 0 | configure:5086: test -s conftest.o | configure:5089: $? = 0 | configure:5099: result: yes | configure:5103: checking ecl.h presence | configure:5114: gcc -E -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c | configure:5120: $? = 0 | configure:5139: result: yes | configure:5175: checking for ecl.h | configure:5182: result: yes | | It first tests whether it can compile with the header file, and | then tests if the file exists or not. Is the second test not | subsumed by the first one (if that one is successful)? | | The first test uses $CFLAGS and $CPPFLAGS, while the second only uses | $CPPFLAGS. If you have some -I and -D in your $CFLAGS, the results | will differ. | | (I'm not justifying the double check. I'm just saying that the second | is not entirely redundant :-) So, this setup provides more fine-grained information in case of problems. OK - I think got it. Thanks! Frederik
superfluous test in AC_CHECK_HEADERS?
Hi, I'm using AC_CHECK_HEADERS([ecl.h]) in configure.ac, and that gives the following in the log file (autoconf 2.57): configure:5067: checking ecl.h usability configure:5080: gcc -c -g -O2 -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c 5 configure:5083: $? = 0 configure:5086: test -s conftest.o configure:5089: $? = 0 configure:5099: result: yes configure:5103: checking ecl.h presence configure:5114: gcc -E -I/proj/contrib/lkb/latest/include -I/proj/contrib/lib/ecl/h conftest.c configure:5120: $? = 0 configure:5139: result: yes configure:5175: checking for ecl.h configure:5182: result: yes It first tests whether it can compile with the header file, and then tests if the file exists or not. Is the second test not subsumed by the first one (if that one is successful)? Thanks, Frederik Fouvry
