Re: conditionally compiling C++ code

[Ronald Landheer-Cieslak]

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:46:38AM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2003 at 01:53:54PM +0200, Ronald Landheer-Cieslak wrote:
> > > > Other than that, the mere knowledge of a compiler being available 
> > > > should 
> > > > not, IMHO, have any impact on the behaviour of any program
> > > One wouldn't expect that it change the behaviour of a program.
> > > But it is convenient to build optional C++ modules of a project when
> > > C++ is available, and not otherwise.  Isn't that what this discussion
> > > is about?
> > As I understood it, the user has the option to not use the C++ compiler, 
> > even if available (hence the need to run AC_PROG_CXX optionnaly).
> OK.  That is different from what I was thinking about.
> > or, as AC_PROG_CXX can't be run optionally:
> > * AC_PROG_CXX
> > ? do we have a C++ compiler
> > + ? do we want to use it
> > | + * compile C++ files
> > But, of course, the third algorithm just works around a bug in autoconf 
> > and does a check that might never be used.
> But this third way doesn't work!  AC_PROG_CXX fails if there is no C++
> compiler and configure aborts.  
Which, IMHO, is a bug.

> The lack of a nonfatal check for C++ is the cause of my complaint,
> too.
And I agree with you - let'as complain together :)

rlc