[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Auto(conf|make) style questions
From: |
tomas |
Subject: |
Re: Auto(conf|make) style questions |
Date: |
Thu, 20 Mar 2003 08:56:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Wed, Mar 19, 2003 at 11:39:12AM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> address@hidden writes:
>
> > - AC_LIBOBJ passes the extra objects through $(LIBOBJS). That
> > means that I can only do it globally, not for a specific
> > binary. Is there another way?
>
> Offhand, I don't think so. [...]
Thanks, Rob. Your answera are always very helpful.
> I ran in to a similar problem with the config.h fixes [...]
Yuck. I keep asking myself wyh those things have to be so messy.
> Unless you can't, or there's some limitation I'm not thinking of, I
> probably still be more likely to use #if guile version testing:
>
> #if GUILE_MAJOR_VERSION >= ... && GUILE_MINOR_VERSION ...
>
> though if I wanted more specific, per-function testing, I guess I
> might test for the features in configure.in and then stick a "#define
> GNEON_NEEDS_SCM_C_STRING2STR 1" into a public config header (but not
> config.h, unless you don't need the symbol publically).
>
> Alternately, you could centralize the version info in a header, but
> still have per-issue defines:
>
> #if GUILE_MAJOR_VERSION >= ... && GUILE_MINOR_VERSION ...
> # define GNEON_NEEDS_SCM_C_STRING2STR 1
> # define GNEON_HAS_TO_CORRECT_FOR_GUILE_CRUFT_BAR 1
> #endif
Yup. It's the old ``version test versus feature test'' issue. I'll
prepare another post on that.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Regards
-- tomas