[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'

**From**: |
Ludovic Courtès |

**Subject**: |
Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT' |

**Date**: |
Tue, 18 Mar 2008 21:36:58 +0100 |

**User-agent**: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |

Hi,
I've seen people reporting `configure' failures due to
"cannot compile sizeof (char)". Investigating the issue, it turned out
to be that, in a native compilation environment, the executable produced
by `AC_COMPUTE_INT' could not be run because some library specified in
`$LIBS' was not in `$LD_LIBRARY_PATH'.
Hence my question: why not always use `AC_COMPUTE_INT_COMPILE' instead
of `AC_COMPUTE_INT_RUN'? I realize the former might be slower in some
cases, because of the binary search, but maybe not that slower with
small integers as is the case with `AC_CHECK_SIZEOF', and probably more
reliable. (And it uses a very smart trick, BTW!)
Thanks,
Ludovic.

**Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**,
*Ludovic Courtès* **<=**
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ralf Wildenhues*, `2008/03/18`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ludovic Courtès*, `2008/03/18`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ineiev*, `2008/03/19`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ralf Wildenhues*, `2008/03/20`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ralf Wildenhues*, `2008/03/20`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Andreas Schwab*, `2008/03/20`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ralf Wildenhues*, `2008/03/20`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Ineiev*, `2008/03/21`
**Re: Implementation of `AC_COMPUTE_INT'**, *Eric Blake*, `2008/03/21`