Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Bruno Haible on 4/26/2008 7:18 AM:
> | Status of 2): Not everyone agrees that this should be done, or at least an
> | escape for old K&R C packages should be offered.
>
> We already have AC_PROG_CC_C89. Maybe we should offer AC_PROG_CC_KR which
> allows a K&R C co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 4/26/2008 7:18 AM:
| Ping? What about installing the patch in
| http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2008-04/msg00050.html ?
I haven't forgotten, but also haven't had time to think about it in depth.
|
|
Ping? What about installing the patch in
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autoconf-patches/2008-04/msg00050.html ?
The part about HP-UX (-Ae option) could be dropped if
1) AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS is modified to add -Ae.
and
2) AC_PROG_CC_STDC is modified to reject K&R C compilers.
Status
Sorry for arriving late to this discussion. As a long term user of
HP-UX and the various native C compilers there I am interested in this
discussion but I admit that I don't quite understand where things have
converged to at this point. Throwing caution to the wind I will jump
into it anyway. :-
* Bob Proulx wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 10:10:19PM CEST:
>
> I think enough time has passed that today the least surprising
> behavior would be for AC_PROG_CC to require an ANSI compiler and fail
> if one is not found.
That may well be the case. But if we cop out by default for pre-C89
compil
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > I can agree to dropping the recommendation to try CC="cc -Ae" if
> Is there an "or" or an "and" connecting (1) and (2)?
That was an implicit "and" :-)
Let me separate the two issues:
-
1) AC_US
* Bruno Haible wrote on Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 05:17:43PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> > c.m4 _AC_PROG_CC_C89 already checks for -Ae, so I don't understand
> > why it's not used automatically (AC_PROG_CC calls that macro).
>
> In the particular case of HP-UX:
>
> - On a system where the ex
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> the bit of qualm I have going this route is that we may
> end up with dozens of recommendations, that all apply to some
> more or less large subset of packages that use Autoconf. For
> the rest it's just bloat.
I don't see the risk of that: 12 years ago, indeed, one neede
Hello Ralf,
> > + On HP-UX, the default C compiler is not ANSI C compatible. If GNU CC is
> > + not installed, it is recommended to use the following options in order to
> > + use an ANSI C compiler:
> > +
> > + @example
> > + ./configure CC="cc -Ae"
> > + @end example
> > +
> > + @noindent
> >
* Bruno Haible wrote on Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 07:48:47PM CEST:
> Eric Blake wrote:
> > That seems like a reasonable idea to me. You have copyright on file; care
> > to submit an actual patch against doc/install.texi?
>
> OK. I actually expected some discussions about the contents and wording :-)
>
Eric Blake wrote:
> | Can we add some recommendations about it in the INSTALL file? ...
>
> That seems like a reasonable idea to me. You have copyright on file; care
> to submit an actual patch against doc/install.texi?
OK. I actually expected some discussions about the contents and wording :-)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 4/10/2008 4:53 AM:
| Can we add some recommendations about it in the INSTALL file? I would
suggest
| a section like this, between the sections "Optional Features" and
| "Specifying the System Type".
That seems like a reas
Hi,
Over and over again users on HP-UX and Tru64 stumble upon compilation failures
of GNU packages that are due to their use of broken vendor-installed C
compilers.
Examples are these threads:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2008-04/msg00065.html (HP-UX)
http://lists.gnu.org/arch
13 matches
Mail list logo
