* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 09:06:20PM CEST: > On 08/31/2009 08:54 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >While still working to prove Bob wrong on the fixincludes sed issues, > > Bob? Bruce; sorry about that, Bruce! > >- require a better sed, > >- split the script in two inside Autoconf (if $extrasub is nonempty), > >- allow for extra sed scripts here. > > Like a new variable $ac_presub, that is executed as > > sed "$ac_presub" | sed "$extrasub; other config.status substitutions" > > ? I think this is what I like the most. Yes, but it is still not extensible. What if GCC needs three or more scripts in the future? Autoconf cannot split scripts, they might be intertwined, or they might come from different third-party macros. Granted, this whole concept is a bit flawed, and too low-level. In fact, I think this API shouldn't be even more encouraged. It doesn't really fix things in an elegant way, and it doesn't help for other pending issues in the GCC tree (such as the multilib fixups that aren't applied in all cases; report coming up). > Does the following plan > make sense to you as Autoconf maintainer? (CCing autoconf@xxxxxxx). Well maybe, but I'm not sure whether we want another rush, nor why we need to decide this alongside with the extrasub issue. override.m4 is also about relaxing release order requirements, no? Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
