Hi, Before all, I want to thank both of Ralf, Philip for interesting discussion. The reason why I'm working with bcc is the investigation on non-GNU developement tools, so Ralf's comment is very suggestive for me. On Tue, 8 Jul 2008 22:57:24 +0200 Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@xxxxxx> wrote: >> I attached the tarball that I tested. I think it's >> primarily by the bug of bcc (not of autoconf), bcc >> does not issue an error in the compilation that >> should not be compiled successfully. But I wish if >> autoconf has any workaround, or pre-checking of >> bcc to avoid the trouble. Other legacy C compilers >> (in 16bit era) are tested and known to work well? > >I have no idea. But Autoconf is pretty old, at least >it already existed at a time where 16bit was very common. > >If you have a way to actually execute code on the compile >system (get binfmt to execute 'elksemu $binary' should be >possible), then you can avoid compile-only tests and make >AC_COMPUTE_INT use the cheaper execution test. Great thank you for suggestion. Yes, by using "elksemu", checking for the size of types would be more exact. Should I write elksemu-specific checking? e.g., checking the target is ELKS, system has "elksemu" (and it works), then several checks are executed by elksemu. If Autoconf has any existing macros to utilize such emulatior command, please let me know. I don't think such commandline emulator is popular (I guess, today virtual machine solution are prefered), so I don't hesitate to write ELKS-specific macros. Regards, mpsuzuki _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
