autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: AC_OBJEXT again


From: Akim Demaille
Subject: Re: AC_OBJEXT again
Date: 13 Dec 2000 13:39:49 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.0807 (Gnus v5.8.7) XEmacs/21.1 (Channel Islands)

| On Dec 12, 2000, address@hidden wrote:
| >     EXEEXT and OBJEXT don't need to know $CYGWIN etc.
|         
| Ok, but I'd rather have the macros renamed to either _AC_HOST_???EXT
| or _AC_CC_???EXT (and only test with the C compiler).

I'm applying the patch as a starting point, these points are still to
be discussed.

Why should we limit ourselves to AC_PROG_CC?  Technically it might be
a bit tricky to introduce asymmetry between the AC_LANG_COMPILER, but
I'm not sure to understand well the point either...

| But I'm also a bit unsure as to whether we should use _AC_LINK_IFELSE,
| given that this macro will tell the compiler to create an executable
| named `conftest', and this may disable whatever default extension the
| compiler might have selected.

Good point.

| The bad side of this is that, if we
| leave the decision up to the compiler, we'll get a.out or a.exe, which
| is out of autoconf's file namespace.

Bad point.

So the real question is, what happens when you use -o conftest?  Will
the cross-compiler and native Win compilers produce conftest, or/and
conftest.exe?  As long as conftest.exe is created when one `-o
conftest', we're doing good.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]