On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 22:55:31 -0700 (PDT), Paul Eggert wrote:
From: Paul Townsend [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 00:09:40 EST
Isn't using strerror in a check for POSIX sort of like mixing apples
and oranges.
Yes, just as ISC mixed them.
S N I P . . .
-- Thanks a lot for the
| AC_ISC_POSIX has existed for years, and many packages use it. At best
| we could mark it as obsolescent. But, being more conservative, I'd
| prefer merely to warn that it will become obsolescent eventually, in
| the documentation.
It's really a pain that this macro exists IMHO. The user
So you want 'AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CXX])'; in order to look only for
certain compilers, simply place the 'AC_PROG_CXX(CC g++ gcc)' call
before the AC_REQUIRE'ing macro in configure.ac.
The problem is that I'm not sure that the proper
AC_PROG_CXX(CC g++ gcc)
will be called from
Hi People!
I'm looking for information on the portability of find(1). Please,
send me everything you know. In particular, I think I'm understanding
that `{}' is portably replaced by the argument only when alone, i.e.,
exactly
find ... {} ...
and not
find ... foo: \{\} ...
Akim Demaille wrote:
Hi People!
I'm looking for information on the portability of find(1). Please,
send me everything you know. In particular, I think I'm understanding
that `{}' is portably replaced by the argument only when alone, i.e.,
exactly
find ... {} ...
and not
I'm looking for information on the portability of find(1). Please,
send me everything you know. In particular, I think I'm understanding
that `{}' is portably replaced by the argument only when alone, i.e.,
exactly
'{}' can only be used portable, if it is a separate argument.
Also
From: Sascha Schumann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:00:11 +0200 (CEST)
'{}' can only be used portably, if it is a separate argument.
It's worse than that. Not only must '{}' be separate and not part of
any other argument, it must not be followed by another argument '+'.
