[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] [PATCH] Addition of More autoconf Checks

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] [PATCH] Addition of More autoconf Checks
Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2004 09:42:46 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

Hash: SHA1

On Monday 05 April 2004 07:54 am, Alexander Winston wrote:
> I ran autoupdate and autoscan in the top-level directory and they
> suggested a few changes and additions, respectively.

Yes, but some of these are known to cause problems -- like the MALLOC/REALLOC 
check (which checks for a certain *style* of malloc, which GNUnet does not 
rely on -- and which would make GNUnet no longer compile on certain systems 
that do not have that malloc style).  autoscan may make suggestions, but 
they're sometimes problematic.

> I minded the
> suggestions and then divided the one big patch into four smaller ones:
> compiler checks, header checks, function checks, and the changes
> suggested by autoupdate. Except for the autoupdate patch, all of the
> applicable sections were sorted alphabetically for increased
> readability. I hope that this does not matter.
> For better or worse, I'm still an autoconf newbie. Therefore, none of
> these might be useful. However, I tested them on my Debian GNU/Linux Sid
> box and did not notice any problems.

Right, but the whole point of configure is to make it portable.  Since your 
changes won't improve portability (and in fact some of them are known to 
break portability), I don't think they should be applied. In fact, instead of 
increasing just the number of mindless tests that are done, what we should do 
is remove tests that we're not using later (that is, either fail on the test 
or depend on a conditional set by the test, but not like now do a bunch of 
tests that have no impact at all but lengthen the compile time).

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

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