[Summarizing the relevant points of the past discussion, somewhat]
Eric Blake wrote:
But with m4, you can arrange for AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE to redefine AC_PROG_CC
so that it hooks in a call to AM_PROG_CC_C_O immediately after its
current definition, and thus still preserve desired ordering while
On 01/11/2013 09:30 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] compile: avoid AC_PROG_CC messy rewrite
Instead, only touch up AC_PROG_CC to distribute the 'compile' script and
to rewrite $CC if a losing compiler is detected. We can do so because
Autoconf 2.70 (which we now requires) has
On 01/10/2013 06:33 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13378#50
@acindex AC_PROG_CC_C_O
-This is like @code{AC_PROG_CC_C_O}, but it generates its results in
-the manner required by Automake. You must use this instead of
On 01/11/2013 06:56 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/11/2013 09:30 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Subject: [PATCH] compile: avoid AC_PROG_CC messy rewrite
Instead, only touch up AC_PROG_CC to distribute the 'compile' script and
to rewrite $CC if a losing compiler is detected. We can do so because
On 01/11/2013 07:19 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/10/2013 06:33 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13378#50
@acindex AC_PROG_CC_C_O
-This is like @code{AC_PROG_CC_C_O}, but it generates its results in
-the manner required by Automake. You
On 01/11/2013 07:19 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 01/10/2013 06:33 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
Reference:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13378#50
@acindex AC_PROG_CC_C_O
-This is like @code{AC_PROG_CC_C_O}, but it generates its results in
-the manner required by Automake. You
Il 03/01/2013 21:53, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
Severity: wishlist
[This is posted also to the automake and texinfo lists to ensure
a wider audience. Discussion should continue exclusively on the
bug-automake list, to avoid a cross-posting flood]
Automake-generated have for a long
On 01/11/2013 06:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 11 January 2013 04:08:26 Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 01/11/2013 05:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i can't imagine this is a big runtime penalty, so why does configure
check for the perl's thread settings and then hardcode that in the
I can't imagine the runtime checks being a big runtime penalty, so there
shouldn't be a need to do the checks at configure check and hardcode the
result in the generated automake.
With the current system, it means if you change your perl config (build
perl w/threads, build automake, build perl
[+cc automake-patches, since patches should be discussed there]
On 01/11/2013 05:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i can't imagine this is a big runtime penalty, so why does configure check
for
the perl's thread settings and then hardcode that in the generated automake ?
I don't know, I wasn't
Hi Stefano:
Thank you very much,I have realized my idea according your
suggestion, The patch will be merged by skyeye(www.skyeye.org).
i have configure.in include auto-probe.m4, I will probe all sub-directory
and fill AC_CONFIG_FILES([Makefile]) into auto-probe.m4 after I create a
device
Il 11/01/2013 11:28, Stefano Lattarini ha scritto:
* snprintfv/configure.ac: Here. Not only that substitution was useless,
but it was causing runtime warnings with Automake 1.13, and, since
support for $(INCLUDES) is bound to disappear in Automake 1.14 (in favour
of $(AM_CPPFLAGS)), it will
On Friday 11 January 2013 04:08:26 Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 01/11/2013 05:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i can't imagine this is a big runtime penalty, so why does configure
check for the perl's thread settings and then hardcode that in the
generated automake ?
I don't know, I wasn't
On 01/11/2013 06:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 11 January 2013 04:08:26 Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 01/11/2013 05:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i can't imagine this is a big runtime penalty, so why does configure
check for the perl's thread settings and then hardcode that in the
On Friday 11 January 2013 12:21:24 Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 01/11/2013 06:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Friday 11 January 2013 04:08:26 Stefano Lattarini wrote:
On 01/11/2013 05:07 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
i can't imagine this is a big runtime penalty, so why does configure
check
15 matches
Mail list logo
