Re: m4_unquote

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello! I tried to put some sanity checks to AT_DATA, but finally decided that they are not worth the trouble. However, this macro (m4_unquote) appeared in process and can be useful for somebody. It was hard for me to write it (but it was a great

Re: AC_HELP_STRING and quotes

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Alexandre Duret-Lutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hi! "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Pavel # m4_unquote(STRING) Pavel # -- Pavel # Remove one pair of the quotes if they exist [...] This just recall me of a place where I would like quotes

Re: autoscan - make missing macro output readable

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Paul Martinolich [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The autoscan from autoconf-2.49c has ugly output for the missing macro warning. $ ../../devel/bin/autoscan.orig warning: missing AC_TYPE_PID_T wanted by: libsdptk/src/PGS_IO_Gen_Temp_Reference.c:675 libsdptk/src/PGS_SMF_Comp.c:5336

Re: More weird things in autoconf

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello! It arrepars that the problem that I originally attributed to the "-Wall" processing has to do with the way how AC_OUTPUT is defined. I expected a message about AC_OUTPUT with arguments, and was surprised not to see it. acgeneral.m4 defines

Re: Warnings are broken

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello, Alexandre! [[AC_INIT([foo]) AC_MSG_ERROR([bad \"value\" found]) AC_OUTPUT([Makefile]) ]]) it took me a while to figure that when I submitted the AC_CACHE_CHECK test (in my case the resulting testsuite was just syntaxically

Re: AC_CANONICAL_*

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Pavel Roskin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hello, Derek! On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Derek R. Price wrote: Why do the AC_CANONICAL_* functions no longer set *_alias? There's a "cvs annotate" and "cvs log" are your friends. Akim did it. But the log message is silent about "FIXME". Akim? There

Re: The AC_LANG_COMPILER problems

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
I finally applied this. Index: BUGS === RCS file: /cvs/autoconf/BUGS,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -u -r1.9 BUGS --- BUGS 2001/02/05 17:33:00 1.9 +++ BUGS 2001/02/19 15:08:11 @@ -21,14 +21,6 @@ * Serious Problems -** Broken

Re: Proposal for AC_PROG_PERL

2001-02-19 Thread Lars J. Aas
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 11:14:16AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote: : This means, that : : AC_PROG_PERL([PERL PATH_PERL]) : : will define PERL to "perl" and PATH_PERL to e.g. "/usr/bin/perl" I'd prefer it if they were separate arguments and not just a list in arg 1. Lars J

Re: Proposal for AC_PROG_PERL

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
This is for 2.51 or more. We do have a problem with AC_CHECK_PROG and relatives, that's for sure. But let's forget about this issue now. Please, install your proposals etc. in TODO, but focus on releasing Autoconf.

Re: Proposal for AC_PROG_PERL

2001-02-19 Thread Pavel Roskin
This is for 2.51 or more. We do have a problem with AC_CHECK_PROG and relatives, that's for sure. But let's forget about this issue now. Please, install your proposals etc. in TODO, but focus on releasing Autoconf. Ok. I like this approach. Regards, Pavel Roskin

Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'. I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether the found executable is a directory while testing -x or -f,

Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH

2001-02-19 Thread Akim Demaille
"Tim Van Holder" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: First off, sorry for the delay in replying; I just set up a new PC and there is still much migrating and configuring to do... But I never read explicitly your environment also has this problem. Has it, or has it not? Because we can it has.

Re: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH

2001-02-19 Thread Earnie Boyd
Akim Demaille wrote: Alexandre Oliva [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Feb 3, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The question is `is $FILE an executable in the common sense'. I think the best thing to do is to just ignore the issue of whether the found executable is a

RE: autoconf 2.49c fails if '.' is in PATH

2001-02-19 Thread Tim Van Holder
On DJGPP, can't you find some other tool that would help? For instance, is perl necessarily installed? Can we use it? No, it's not. And the DJGPP maintainers get very upset if you try forcing users to have too many non-trivial packages installed (and perl is certainly non-trivial). I can't

Re: glibc 2.2 and config.guess

2001-02-19 Thread Vaidhyanathan Mayilrangam
Hi Pavel, Found out that my config.guess is at least a six months old.. The newer ones have fixed it.. The problem was that with the new g++, stdio.h will not be included by default.. It needs to be included explictly to provide printf function prototype.. I got the latest one and the bug has

Re: glibc 2.2 and config.guess

2001-02-19 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hello, Vaidhyanathan! Due to glibc 2.2, the standard headers will no longer be included by default.. So config.guess needs to add #include stdio.h after line 696.. First of all, all fixes to config.guess and config.sub should be sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Secondly, I don't know what