Re: [HACKERS] testing for usable C compiler

2003-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> Couldn't we just throw a prototyped function into that test program? > The standard Autoconf prototype test is pretty involved (see > AC_PROG_CC_STDC in /usr/local/share/autoconf/autoconf/c.m4 or whatever). Yikes. And that's real

Re: [HACKERS] testing for usable C compiler

2003-09-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > Yeah. I would suggest doing it at the "check that C compiler still > works" stage, after we think we have all the CFLAGS. Couldn't we just > throw a prototyped function into that test program? The standard Autoconf prototype test is pretty involved (see AC_PROG_CC_STDC in /us

Re: [HACKERS] testing for usable C compiler

2003-09-03 Thread Tom Lane
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane writes: >> BTW, would it be possible to tweak configure's test for "minimum working >> C compiler" to include a check that cc accepts ANSI-style function >> prototypes? That would allow us to bounce HP's lame excuse for a free >> compiler wit

Re: [HACKERS] testing for usable C compiler

2003-09-03 Thread Peter Eisentraut
Tom Lane writes: > BTW, would it be possible to tweak configure's test for "minimum working > C compiler" to include a check that cc accepts ANSI-style function > prototypes? That would allow us to bounce HP's lame excuse for a free > compiler with a slightly useful message ... Yes, unfortunatel

[HACKERS] testing for usable C compiler

2003-09-02 Thread Tom Lane
BTW, would it be possible to tweak configure's test for "minimum working C compiler" to include a check that cc accepts ANSI-style function prototypes? That would allow us to bounce HP's lame excuse for a free compiler with a slightly useful message ... regards, tom lane