[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#13378: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required.
From: |
Nick Bowler |
Subject: |
bug#13378: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required. |
Date: |
Sun, 13 Jan 2013 16:06:38 -0500 |
On 2013-01-13, Stefano Lattarini <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 01/13/2013 09:01 PM, Nick Bowler wrote:
>> +dnl Automatically invoke AM_PROG_CC_C_O as necessary. Since AC_PROG_CC is
>> +dnl usually called after AM_INIT_AUTOMAKE, we arrange for the test to be
>> +dnl done later by AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS_PRE.
>
> This would also have the advantage that we shouldn't worry about possible
> $CC rewrites between the AC_PROG_CC and the AC_OUTPUT invocation. Your
> approach might actually be not only the simplest, but also the sanest one.
>
> That said, I believe we'd still have to fix AM_PROG_CC_C_O not to rely on
> the broken AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics of checking *both* '$CC' and 'cc' for
> "-c -o" support. But that is quite orthogonal to your patch, and material
> for a follow-up anyway.
Well, that seem more like a something to change in Autoconf, not
requiring any change in Automake (except maybe we could also fix the
crazy cache variable naming scheme). I admit I do not understand the
rationale for Autoconf testing "plain" cc in addition to the real
compiler.
> Another useful follow-up would be to move the AM_PROG_CC_C_O in a private
> macro (to be expanded in AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS_PRE like you did above), and
> make AM_PROG_CC_C_O a no-op (without runtime deprecation). That way, we
> could rely on the improved semantic of having the potential '$CC' rewrite
> placed near the end of configure, rather than near the beginning. WDYT?
With AC_CONFIG_COMMANDS_PRE, AM_PROG_CC_C_O would still be required if
package authors want to make use of the "compile" wrapper in configure
tests -- essentially, configure.ac can call AM_PROG_CC_C_O to force the
test to happen where it is needed, rather than just before AC_OUTPUT.
I think it'd be worthwhile to keep that working.
Cheers,
Nick
- bug#13378: [PATCH] compile: use 'compile' script when "-c -o" is used with losing compilers, (continued)
- bug#13378: [PATCH] compile: use 'compile' script when "-c -o" is used with losing compilers, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/11
- bug#13378: [PATCH] compile: use 'compile' script when "-c -o" is used with losing compilers, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/12
- bug#13378: [PATCH] compile: use 'compile' script when "-c -o" is used with losing compilers, Nick Bowler, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: [PATCH] compile: use 'compile' script when "-c -o" is used with losing compilers, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/13
- bug#13378: [PATCH 1/2] Use AC_DEFUN_ONCE to define AM_PROG_CC_C_O., Nick Bowler, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required., Nick Bowler, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required., Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/13
- bug#13378: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required.,
Nick Bowler <=
- bug#13378: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required., Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics (was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required.), Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/14
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/16
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Paul Eggert, 2013/01/16
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Eric Blake, 2013/01/16
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/16
- bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/01/19