"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Well CFLAGS was the autoconf maintainers suggestion.
Yes, my opinion was to have a macro which defines WIN32_FLAGS, and let
the user do what they want with it: glue it to CFLAGS, AC_SUBST it etc.
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert Wasn't that for the low level interface? Which I've done - it
Robert defines WIN32FLAGS...
This is fine! Most people will not want to bother, and having it into
CFLAGS is fine, there is nothing else to do. And your low level one
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins
| Sample code to use it in configure.in, when the program _needs_ the
| win32 API:
|
| AC_CANONICAL_HOST
|
| case "${host}" in
| *-*-cygwin*)
| AC_PROG_CC_WIN32
| if $ac_cc_win32; then
| dnl do nothing here - any header checks /library checks etc
| later in configure.in
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
| Sample code to use it in configure.in, when
- Original Message -
From: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I suggest separating `test for features and display results' from
`set
variables', so that you can enclose the tests within AC_CACHE_CHECK
and still
| My opinion is that AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 should contain an AC_REQUIRE of
| AC_CANONICAL_HOST, and should ensure the case $host itself.
|
| Why?
To make it easier to read and write where it is used.
| There is no side effect if it is tested for on platforms other than
| cygwin.
Nor in my
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:18 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
- Original Message -
From: "Akim D
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert It looks like the cc result is not used from cache - so I
Robert don't think this test should allow caching. Also I have a
Robert question on the caching: I need to cache _the change needed to
Robert CC_... Is that temporary variable
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| My opinion is that AC_PROG_CC_WIN32 should contain an AC_REQUIRE
of
| AC_CANONICAL_HOST, and should ensure the case $host itself.
|
| Why?
To make it easier to read and write where it is used.
Ok. Lets see what
- Original Message -
From: "edward" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Akim Demaille"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
- Origina
| The developer could use
| AC_PROG_CC_WIN32
| AC_CHECK_HEADER([windows.h])
|
| and then (test in the configure script) / (surround the win32 code with
| #IF_HAVE_WINDOWS_H), but I thought giving the developer a clear
| mechanism would be nice.
Then it seems to me that the interface is not
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Robert It looks like the cc result is not used from cache - so I
Robert don't think this test should allow caching. Also I have a
Robert question on the caching: I
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then it seems to me that the interface is not right. Maybe
something like
AC_HEADER_WINDOWS
Robert Good suggestion. Then the developer can simply check for
Robert HAVE_WINDOWS_H afterwards.. I like :] What about the language
Robert
- Original Message -
From: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "edward" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
- Origina
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 9:13 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
&qu
just a note: another reason that LDFLAGS etc aren't changed, is that
it's not needed:
(from the gcc specs file entry *cpp:
%{mwin32:-DWIN32 -D_WIN32 -D__WIN32 -D__WIN32__ -DWINNT -idirafter
/usr/include/w32api}
)
Of course it may need to change in the future..
Rob
I just went and looked at the AC_LANG stuff properly - to support that
properly it seems like I need to choose
_which_ variables get altered on the basis of the current stack value,
or go with language specific functions.
Whats better? Is it worth supporting the AC_LANG for this essentially
| Yes. Well the namespace pollution is already solved - that was my
| ignorance. I think the best bet is the high/low level interface.
|
| the questions are then:
|
| one low level interface for each language? (I think yes)
Yep, the current one.
| one high level interface for each language
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 02:51:08AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
: On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
: version 2.. returns true/false now. I've also updated te sample code
: to reflect this
:
: Better use `:' instead of `true'. I'm not sure `:' is more
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Robert I just went and looked at the AC_LANG stuff properly - to
Robert support that properly it seems like I need to choose _which_
Robert variables get altered on the basis of the current stack value,
Robert or go with language specific
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
Cor
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| What does the high level interface do ? (I suggest it sets the
Robert variables
| named above, setting them to " " as a minimum if WIN32 is found,
and | nothing if it is not.
What's the point? Just define a user var to the proper
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then there is yet another thing to introduce IMHO, AC_SYS_WIN32 or
so, which does define this symbol to yes/no. You high level macro
ac_requires it.
Robert Doesn't that just check the _current_ support ?
Sorry, I don't understand.
Is
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
&qu
PROTECTED]
To: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then ther
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 01:18:37PM +0100, Lars J. Aas wrote:
: I agree, but I'd rather have the implementation/optimization details hidden
: in some autoconf-provided variables like $as_true and $as_false - it would
: be less obfuscating. Then you could set $as_true to ":" and perhaps $as_false
t;Alexandre Oliva" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2001 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
"Robert" == Robert Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Then there is yet another thing to introduce IMHO, AC_SYS_WIN32 or
so, which does
"tailbert" == tailbert edward writes:
tailbert it's a language feature.
OK, but then I fail to understand why you'd need to have WIN32=' ' to
know the test was run. Either you are looking for a switch for a
language dependent feature, or you look for some support of something
on your system,
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "edward" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
"t
Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Akim Demaille" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "edward" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: upda
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Neato.. But can we put CFLAGS="$WIN32FLAGS $CFLAGS" or will that break
other things? AFAIK (Chris - any comment) the -mwin32 needs to go
first..
It breaks builds from the gcc or gdb build trees which override CFLAGS
from the top
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 10:27:45PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
just a note: another reason that LDFLAGS etc aren't changed, is that
it's not needed:
(from the gcc specs file entry *cpp:
%{mwin32:-DWIN32 -D_WIN32 -D__WIN32 -D__WIN32__ -DWINNT -idirafter
/usr/include/w32api}
)
Of course it may
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 12:54:01AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
I still don't think all of this fuss is really worth it but I'm going
to
add my 29 cents worth in this thread.
AISI, what is needed is only whether or not the the compiler supports
a
-mwin32 switch. Then the configure.in can
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Neato.. But can we put CFLAGS=&q
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:12:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
- Original Message -
From: "Christopher Faylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
Neato..
o: "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: updated win32 macro
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:56:43AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
So in a nutshell, because some packages change CFLAGS, and others
ch
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:56:43AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
So in a nutshell, because some packages change CFLAGS, and others change
CC, we require everyone to change their Makefiles ?
I agree that overriding CC is bad - thats why it was changed to CFLAGS.
But CFLAGS is the standard way of
On Mar 14, 2001, "Robert Collins" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
version 2.. returns true/false now. I've also updated te sample code
to reflect this
Better use `:' instead of `true'. I'm not sure `:' is more portable,
but at least it's a built-in in more shells than `true'.
I suggest
40 matches
Mail list logo
