Hi Liviu, * Liviu Nicoara wrote on Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 05:54:16PM CEST: > > I am trying to understand what you mean by intuitive? How is it > intuitive for example a test case which tests for the existence of a > header file? Well, intuitive might not have been a good word at all, sorry. > The example is useful to me in that it allows me to detect a particular > behaviour of a C++ compiler/linker which allows me to craft my code > accordingly. Surely. But your example has a trivial different solution: don't write code which depends on static inlines to be collapsed. Sure, there might be a slight performance hit (or maybe even a large one, I don't know). (Or other important reasons, which I might not know of yet.) > In what regards portability I would expect the [portable] > infrastructure I use to provide me the means to detect the unportable > language constructs or non-compliant compiler behaviour across the > platforms I am porting on. Surely. I would also fully encourage an in-Autoconf solution for the problem type you described, if I saw a good example. > The example I provided is representative for a real-world situation: > Microsoft Visual C++ 6.0/7.0/7.1 and Visual Age for C++ 5.x/6.x/7.0 both > violate ODR in certain situations. If you know a better or simpler way > to detect the behaviour in my example I would be happy to learn about > it, but just dismissing the example as not being representative for a > real-world situation is not very helpful. I'm sorry if I appear non-helpful to you. Maybe I can phrase it another way: there are certainly examples where it's much harder to work around a missing feature or compiler limitation without a corresponding (multi translation unit) configure test. It could be helpful if you could point out one. Independently, if you decide to implement such a macro yourself, I'd encourage you to post it here. Regards, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
