Hello Patrick, I'm going to answer only one of your minor comments now. (Please be patient as far as your main suggestion goes.) On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 05:45:46PM +0100, Patrick Welche wrote: > Also, AC_TYPE_SIZE_T does not claim to define HAVE_SIZE_T, (as it > uses _AC_CHECK_TYPE_OLD) - would defining HAVE_SIZE_T be considered > an improvement? I think the current situation is consistent with other AC_CHECK_* macros. The ``AC_CHECK_FOO'' does not define ``HAVE_something'', while ``AC_CHECK_FOOS'' does (AC_CHECK_FUNC vs AC_CHECK_FUNCS, AC_CHECK_HEADER vs AC_CHECK_HEADERS, etc.). I guess this distinction might be used this way: - first you call e.g. AC_CHECK_FUNC([some], ...) to see whether the function exists, - then you do more checks to see if it is good enough for your purposes, - then you AC_DEFINE([HAVE_SOME], [Working version of func some().]) I'm not sure how often is this pattern is used. In any case, this shows that we cannot define HAVE_* in the ``AC_CHECK_FOO'' macros, because of backward compatibility. Similarly, we might consider modifying all the particular AC_TYPE_* macros to use AC_CHECK_TYPES, to get the corresponding HAVe_* defined. But again, this would present a (small) backward incompatibility, and I'm afraid that the added value is not high enough to justify it. Back to AC_TYPE_SIZE_T: the reason is that it calls AC_CHECK_TYPE, no matter whether it is new or old version. But you may call AC_CHECK_TYPES([size_t]) just after AC_TYPE_SIZE_T to get HAVE_SIZE_T for cheap. HTH, Stepan Kasal _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
