Re: Please tell me this is an automake bug :-)

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Bruce" == Bruce Korb <address@hidden> writes:

Bruce> However, since I know that a lot of information is communicated
Bruce> from developers to the automake engine via entries in
Bruce> configure.xx, my guess would be that the upcoming automake
Bruce> might have some severe uptake problems.  Where can one read
Bruce> about how you plan to make this work?  I'm hoping for something
Bruce> more concise than a long email thread, if that is handy....

I don't think there is a concise description of the plan.

But basically: instead of scanning configure.in using our hacky ad-hoc
scanner, which is prone to problems (as you've discovered), we will
now run autoconf in trace mode.  In this mode autoconf will tell us
what we need to know, in a precise way.  This ought to reduce the
number of parsing problems we see.

So information will still be extracted from configure.in.  We have to
do that.  However the extraction will now be more reliable, not only
in terms of resilience to syntax, but also in terms of future changes
to autoconf.

Tom