[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: autorescan?

From: Tim Post
Subject: Re: autorescan?
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:39:01 +0800

On Wed, 2008-07-02 at 06:11 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> No such automation exists.  I expect that it would be dwarfed by the
> work needed to adjust the actual sources for all the new tests, too
> (i.e., adding '#ifdef HAVE_SOME_HEADER_H' where needed, and such).

That makes sense. I've been writing boilerplate stuff with autoconf in
mind which already contains and accounts for these checks. Its not at
all difficult to do it manually as I drop things in, I was just curious.

> BTW, I'd introduce new configure tests only when I know or strongly
> suspect them to actually fix a portability issue; and I'd still try
> hard to find a platform that exposes the non-default test result, to
> make sure not to rely on other unnoticed assumptions.

I've been including most checks that autoscan suggests. My reasoning is
that someone down the line might need those checks and may not be able
to autoreconf in order to include them. Probably bad practice ...

Thanks again for your help, this list is a very friendly resource and
makes autotools a little less intimidating :)


reply via email to

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