Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > > I think that autoconf should have the guard for double inclusion.
> >
> > Autoconf does not need to provide a double-inclusion guard for
> > config.h, because those packages that need it can get it through
> > use of AH_TOP and AH_BOTTOM.
>
> That is not a rea
> I think that autoconf should have the guard for double inclusion.
Autoconf does not need to provide a double-inclusion guard for
config.h, because those packages that need it can get it through
use of AH_TOP and AH_BOTTOM.
That is not a reason to not include such a guard.
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Please note that this does have a small change in semantics, namely if
> there is code using AM_COND_IF
Thanks for the heads-up; I'll change the code to handle that as well.
> > There's no point in being _that_ safe that you check unused expressions
> > for validity. C co
Hi Ralf,
> More danger ahead:
>
> if $foo; then result=ok; else result=bad; fi
> AM_CONDITIONAL([COND1], [test $result = ok])
> if $bar; then result=ok; else result=bad; fi
> AM_CONDITIONAL([COND2], [test $result = ok])
>
> I've seen such code in third party projects, it will break if you delay
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:47:35AM CEST:
> * Bruno Haible wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 11:42:51PM CEST:
> > > > AM_CONDITIONAL([USE_VARIANT_A], [$use_variant_a])
> > >
> > > Instead of this line, you could use
> > > AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS_PRE([AM_CONDITIONAL([...])])
> >
