Re: AC_CHECK_SIZEOF failing on undefined HAVE_STDINT_H with -Werror

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

 



Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@xxxxxx> writes:

> Except now, HAVE_MALLOC, HAVE_REALLOC, and the results of AC_CHECK_DECLS
> (HAVE_DECL_*) are special cases.  They seem to be documented correctly
> as such in the manual, but I think a mention of these in the NEWS item
> would be helpful, given that you intend to keep them that way.

> (And no, I don't know the reason for each of these special cases; at
> least the AC_CHECK_DECLS one looks like it's very much intended so.)

Yes, the results of AC_CHECK_DECLS have always been a special case dating
back to when this was a GCC macro (I think that's where it started),
because it's expressing trinary information.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>


_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@xxxxxxx
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf

[Index of Archives]     [GCC Help]     [Kernel Discussion]     [RPM Discussion]     [Red Hat Development]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux USB]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux