[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: cross-compilation guesses (15)
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: cross-compilation guesses (15) |
Date: |
Sat, 05 May 2012 16:32:59 +0200 |
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Another suboptimal cross-compilation guess is
>
> checking for working nanosleep... cross-compiling
>
> This test has 3 possible results:
> - "yes", it works, no override needed.
> - "no (mishandles large arguments)", means it works halfway, the
> override in lib/nanosleep.c can use the system's nanosleep().
> - "no", means it is completely unusable, the override in lib/nanosleep.c
> must use other system calls.
...
> diff --git a/m4/nanosleep.m4 b/m4/nanosleep.m4
...
> + [case "$host_os" in dnl ((
> + linux*) # Guess it halfway works on when the kernel is Linux.
> + gl_cv_func_nanosleep='guessing no (mishandles large arguments)'
> ;;
> + *) # If we don't know, assume the worst.
> + gl_cv_func_nanosleep='guessing no' ;;
> + esac
> + ])
Thanks.
This looks fine, modulo a nit in the comment above:
s/works on when/works when/
- Re: cross-compilation guesses (9), (continued)
- cross-compilation guesses (10), Bruno Haible, 2012/05/01
- cross-compilation guesses (11), Bruno Haible, 2012/05/05
- cross-compilation guesses (12), Bruno Haible, 2012/05/05
- cross-compilation guesses (13), Bruno Haible, 2012/05/05
- cross-compilation guesses (14), Bruno Haible, 2012/05/05
- cross-compilation guesses (15), Bruno Haible, 2012/05/05
- Re: cross-compilation guesses (15),
Jim Meyering <=