From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21507 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2001 10:06:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21485 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2001 10:06:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (195.224.55.237) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2001 10:06:11 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88E113E8F; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 10:06:09 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <3C206691.2010005@cygnus.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 02:06:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011207 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: law@redhat.com Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Update for AC_PROG_STDC_CC fix References: <18104.1008708596@porcupine.cygnus.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00455.txt.bz2 > > > * acinclude.m4 (AM_PROG_CC_STDC): New macro to override the broken > > > one in automake. Uses -Ae, not -Aa to put HP compiler into ANSI > > > with extensions mode. > > > * aclocal.m4: Rebuilt. > > > > > > Mostly ok. Before checking it in can you please tweek the name to be > > something else (GDB_PROG_CC_STDC?) and modify the description to mention > > how it is different to AM_PROG_CC_STDC. > Or better yet, can we get rid of it completely from GDB? The only reason > this causes problems is the bogus definition of prog_cc_stdc found when > configuring gdb bleeds into other directories which use prog_cc_stdc > via a shared config.cache. Isn't something needed for HP/UX to get the compiler into the right mode? But yes I agree, even after renaming the macro, there is a problem with prog_cc_stdc clashes. > I haven't followed things closely enough to know if that's viable or not > (not to mention my lack of knowledge regarding autoconf/automake). Ditto. Tom? > > Are you able to pull this into the 5.1 branch or do you want me to? > I can if we in fact do need a CC_STDC definition for gdb. Andrew