[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Two problems for autoconf(1.NEC SX 2.Cray)

From: Paul Eggert
Subject: Re: Two problems for autoconf(1.NEC SX 2.Cray)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 01:00:03 -0800 (PST)

> From: Jeroen van den Muyzenberg <address@hidden>
> Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 22:39:57 +1100 (EST)
> Good example is OpenLDAP, autoconf used there recognised (incorrectly) our
> Cray as a C90 ('twas good enough). Recent versions of autoconf have dropped
> that.

That's not an Autoconf issue; it's a config.guess issue.  You'll need
to write to the config.guess maintainer, at address@hidden
However, before you do that, please try upgrading to the latest
version at, as config.guess has had
several Cray patches in the last few weeks, and perhaps your bug has
been fixed already.

> I am suprised that there is (and I could be interpreting this
> incorrectly) some resistance to including new architecture/OS
> templates.

I don't think that's the issue.  Autoconf generally does not use
templates (i.e. it does not use the config.guess approach).  Instead
of determining whether you're using a Cray or an x86 or whatever,
Autoconf-generated scripts try to see whether your host supports a
particular small feature, and to do so one small feature at a time.

Sometimes the Autoconf philosophy doesn't work for one reason or
another, so it has to fall back on config.guess.  But this is a sign
of weakness, not of strength.  From Autoconf's point of view,
config.guess should be used only as a last resort.

reply via email to

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