Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 10:32 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: >> Stepan Kasal <kasal@xxxxxx> writes: >> >>> * lib/autoconf/general.m4 (_AC_LINK_IFELSE): Skip AS_TEST_X >>> when cross-compiling. >> >> Thanks, I installed that. > > Hmm, I am not convinced. If this check can be skipped for cross > compilation (Which I think is not correct), why can't it always be > skipped? As I read the background discussion, leading to introduction of this extended test, it appears that it was introduced to appease one broken compiler suite, running on an elderly minority platform. In so doing, it has broken a feature of autoconf itself, on a current and widely deployed platform, namely Microsoft Windows. Sure, users of that platform *can* install Cygwin, and rely on its trickery to work around that breakage, but that is hardly a proper solution--the feature remains broken in the general *native* Win32 case. To dogmatically insist that a broken feature, manifest on such a widely deployed platform, should not be fixed, or at least mitigated, just seems rather foolish. As it happens, the problem in autoconf-2.61's AC_LINK_IFELSE is manifest on Win32, *only* when cross-compiling; thus, eliminating the potentionally broken test for this case, where it can be predicted that it might be broken, is a reasonable work around. If you want a more deterministic test, consider that on native Win32, at least when using the MSYS shell, something based on $ rm -f conftest $ : > conftest $ test -x conftest && echo yes || echo no no $ chmod +x conftest $ test -x conftest && echo yes || echo no no $ ls -l conftest -rw-r--r-- 1 keith users 0 Apr 12 10:22 conftest $ mv conftest conftest.exe $ test -x conftest && echo yes || echo no yes $ ls -l conftest -rwxr-xr-x 1 keith users 0 Apr 12 10:22 conftest would indicate when AS_TEST_X cannot be used reliably, for arbitrarily named files. Regards, Keith. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
