* David Fang wrote on Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:15:09AM CEST: > > Thanks for reporting this; I didn't realize it was a regression. > > -Wundef is a bit controversial, but it's easy for Autoconf to support > > its use for programmers that prefer it, so I installed the following > > patch. > In practice, I have actually caught one or two serious errors using > -Wundef -Werror, as anal-retentive and controversial as it may seem. > YMMV. In practice, with the set of warning flags you posted previously, you will break several Autoconf macros in very subtle ways (and no, not all are easy to fix). > Wasn't it pointed out in this thread (#if vs. #ifdef) that evaluating > an undefined macro with #if is undefined in standard C? (i.e. cannot > assumed to be equivalent to evaluating 0). It was claimed but then proved to be a false statement. IOW: evaluating an undefined macro with #if is perfectly acceptable C89. > Also perhaps it should be noted somewhere that while autoconf's m4 macros > now use #ifdef to conditionally include headers, users may still use > #if USER_DEFINED_MACRO as long as the said macro is defined in all cases > by the configure test. This internal change doesn't force any users to > define and use configure macros with one convention or the other. The > important thing is that definition and use are consistent. Not with the direction the change is going now. Au contraire: it is safe for users to use #if throughout; their motivation to change would stem from the desire to be able to build with '-Wundef -Werror', not any change within Autoconf. > Just confirming: will this revision appear in release 2.61? Unless it is reverted in some way, yes. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
