autoconf
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Autoconf] Re: Should the C++ sourcefile extension be changed?


From: Pavel Roskin
Subject: Re: [Autoconf] Re: Should the C++ sourcefile extension be changed?
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 09:11:20 -0400 (EDT)

Hello, Lassi!

On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Lassi A. Tuura wrote:

> [>>   c++ -c foo.cxx -o foo.o]
> > >   c++ -o foo foo.o -L/some/where -lbar
> > > must become:
> > >   cl -c -Tpfoo.cxx -Fofoo.obj
> > >   cl -Fefoo.exe foo.obj bar.lib -link -LIBPATH:\some\where
> > 
> > This is too dirty. Only a wrapper can help.
> 
> Yes, probably.  Just to record for archives that if autoconf doesn't do
> this kind of munging, non-trivial linking tests are unlikely to succeed
> with `cl'.  Maybe that should be mentioned somewhere in the
> documentation?

I'm probably not the best person to discuss this issue since I don't have
access to MSVC, but let me suggest the following scenario:

1) For now, Autoconf continues to scan for "cl" somewhere near the end of
the list. If it's the only compiler it finds, fine, WYGIWYD (what you get
is what you deserve :-))

2) You write a wrapper for MSVC, ideally under the GPL. If you come up
reasonable patches for Autoconf, they will be applied.

3) When the wrapper is ready, Autoconf is modified to stop searching for
"cl". In the same time, the documentation is updated with the pointer to
your wrapper.

I just want to avoid documenting things that are not ready and referring
to programs that are not yet written :-)

I hope this sounds reasonable.

Regards,
Pavel Roskin



reply via email to

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