On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:35 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > So you use Autoconf's AC_LANG_SOURCE but your own version of > AC_LANG_CONFTEST, Yes, it would seem so. You will have to excuse my lack of decisiveness on this. I am more-or-less just getting to the party. :-) > and the fact that an optimization changed > the latter to do part of the work of the former in Autoconf, Ahhh. So that's what changed. > but your variant of the *CONFTEST macro doesn't do that, breaks > your code, and is the regression. Indeed. > First off, unless your real LB_LINUX_CONFTEST looks differently, No, in fact it is exactly as I posted. > you should easily be able to work around the issue by something > like > AC_DEFUN([LB_LINUX_CONFTEST], m4_defn([AC_LANG_CONFTEST])) Does that have the same effect as simply using AC_LANG_CONFTEST directly as a replacement for LB_LINUX_CONFTEST? TBH, I don't know why we have our own LB_LINUX_CONFTEST but if we don't really need it, I'd be just as amenable to getting rid of it and using more from upstream. > which I think should work with both old and new Autoconf. I tested the new one, and it seems to have the desired effect -- that is directly replacing LB_LINUX_CONFTEST with AC_LANG_CONFTEST. > Second, I do think this is a regression, as our documentation > pretty clearly states that AC_LANG_SOURCE is the one expanding > all the AC_DEFINEs seen so far. I do however also think that > the old code was ugly and hackish. Ahhh. That old rock and hard place. Clean up the code or keep the API. I hate when that happens. As a sidebar, as you can start to see and probably guess, we have written a boatload of macros to deal with autoconf and the linux kernel environment. We'd of course prefer to just use macros that came from upstream, if they existed. They don't, right? :-) I'm not just totally missing them am I? Is there a particular reason why a library of linux kernel macros doesn't exist, beyond the obvious case that simply nobody has contributed any? Or is there a philosophical reason not to build such a library within the autoconf project itself? Cheers and thanx much for bearing with me on all of this. b.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
