From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24151 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2002 06:17:20 -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 24133 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 06:17:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (63.201.54.26) by sources.redhat.com with QMTP; 10 Dec 2002 06:17:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 18426 invoked by uid 10); 10 Dec 2002 06:17:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 20176 invoked by uid 500); 10 Dec 2002 06:17:28 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: geoffk@geoffk.org, neroden@twcny.rr.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, newlib@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, autoconf@gnu.org, aoliva@redhat.com To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Geoff Keating , Nathanael Nerode , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com, newlib@sources.redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, autoconf@gnu.org Subject: Re: AC_NO_EXECUTABLES is useless for GCC References: <20021205223538.GA24616@doctormoo> <87adjk83ce.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> <874r9pleth.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com> From: Ian Lance Taylor Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00319.txt.bz2 Alexandre Oliva writes: > I think we'll be better served by declarative macros such as > AC_{CC,CXX,...}_LINK_MAY_FAIL, that modify the autoconf-generated > sanity link test for AC_PROG_{CC,CXX,...} such that it does not bail > out if it fails, but rather it sets a variable indicating the result > of the test, such that we could base our decision on whether to > perform additional link tests on this variable. Does it sound like > this would work? This approach sounds weird to me. The basic problem is that AC_PROG_CC does the wrong thing for libstdc++ and a few other configure scripts--namely, it executes the test of whether the compiler works. It seems to me that AC_PROG_CC should call some helper macros--perhaps just two--and that libstdc++ should call a subset of those helper macros--perhaps just one. Adding macros which change the behaviour of other macros seems confusing. I don't see the advantage of that at all. Ian