[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Gnucap-devel] autoconf-WIP branch

From: al davis
Subject: Re: [Gnucap-devel] autoconf-WIP branch
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:04:55 -0400
User-agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.2.0-4-amd64; KDE/4.8.4; x86_64; ; )

On Friday 19 July 2013, Felix Salfelder wrote:
> > 2. It does lots of tests that seem irrelevant, to the
> > extent  that if something really is wrong it will often be
> > buried by the clutter.  I don't see any place where those
> > tests were requested.  It seems that autotools ALWAYS does
> > this, everywhere.  It checks for C headers that gnucap
> > doesn't use, and doesn't check for the C++ headers that
> > gnucap does use. What really bothers me about this is that
> > I could not find where such tests were requested.
> yes, there are a lot of tests, none of which looks extremely
> superfluous... but i can have a look, can you suggest a test
> to start?
> if it should check for c++ headers that it currently doesnt,
> maybe "autoscan" can help. autoscan reads throught the
> source code and (nondestructively) writes out everything
> that might be useful (to configure.scan iirc).

I was commenting on the inconsistency of explicitly checking 
lots of stuff that is not used, while not checking for the ones 
that ARE used.

Also, that I did not see in where those tests were 
requested, which indicates that autoconf is not doing what the 
config files tell it to do.  That brings up a lesson I learned 
may years ago, the hard way .....  Magic behavior is bad.

Over the years, I have run into cases where programs failed to 
build because of those irrelevant tests.

I could see "checking for a proper build environment", and if it 
isn't a detailed message to guide in fixing it.  I see no harm 
in leaving out the whole thing.

It looks like we are stuck with it.  That's unfortunate but it 
looks like we must go with it.

reply via email to

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