[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements |
Date: |
Thu, 18 May 2006 08:06:03 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 |
Good morning Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 11:19:22PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 17, 2006 at 10:42:21PM CEST:
> >> Perhaps you misunderstand me? I'm advocating sh.test style static
> >> check that tries to match uses of, say, $EGREP in an AC_DEFUN with a
> >> matching m4_require([_LT_DECL_EGREP]) at ``make test'' time.
> >
> >Nope, I'm not misunderstanding you, I think. Such an automated check
> >will not save you.
> >
> >You can still get into trouble by requiring macros in the wrong order.
> >I.e., all macros have their requirements listed at the beginning, but
> >still some are expanded before their requirements.
>
> Yikes! I hope that isn't really the case. Autoconf require graph
> tracing has gone to quite some lengths to ensure that all the macros you
> AC_REQUIRE are expanded before the body of the macro that requires them.
This is what I was thinking of:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-03/msg00075.html
> Oh wait, you mean that the expansion order of the required macros can't
> be inferred?
That's true as well, but it's not a big problem iff dependencies are all
recorded properly.
> I agree with that, but I don't think it has any bearing on
> the usefulness of having a warning in macros that use, say, $Xsed
> without ac_require([_LT_DECL_SED]).
Yep.
> >IMHO this is an argument for not factorizing more than makes actually
> >sense from a script POV: if I have to think about requirement order of
> >third party macros, and I actually know in which order I want stuff to
> >appear in the output, and what I'm doing is linear, well, then why am
> >I not just writing it that way?
>
> ACK. So long as there is (preferably) no code duplication :-D
Certainly.
> Really, the point is moot, as I have no clue how to reliably extract
> a list of macros that forgot to require the appropriate DECLs :-(
Indeed, me neither. I usually compare the generated configure scripts
by hand before and after a patch, for our toplevel and some of the old
tests' directories.
Cheers,
Ralf
- some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements, Gary V. Vaughan, 2006/05/17
- Re: some missing _LT_DECL_SED requirements,
Ralf Wildenhues <=