Re: [PATCH] A better (?) _AC_EXEEXT

[Akim Demaille]

| * Akim
| | Then let me restate my question: why don't you use AC_TRY_EVAL just
| | like in AC_EXEXT: this is a good first step I think.
| 
| Umm.. I assume you mean to ask "why not use AC_TRY_EVAL in AC_EXEEXT
| just like in AC_OBJEXT" (and not "..like in AC_EXEEXT")?
| 
| If so, my question for you is then: what should AC_TRY_EVAL evaluate?
| I can't think of any suitable command which would uncover how to use
| executable suffices on the system -- without already _knowing_ the
| suffix.  :^/
| 
| Note that AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link) is _not_ the correct answer, as ac_link
| contains a reference to $ac_exeext (which of course means a circular
| dependency back to AC_EXEEXT).

Yep.  We fail to communicate :)

I agree there are *two* issues.  One is that there is a AC_REQUIRE
circular dependency because AC_EXEXT uses AC_LINK_IFELSE, the other is
that both AC_LINK_IFELSE and AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link) are inappropriate
here.

My point is *first* we get rid of the circular dependency, *then* we
proceed to a sound implementation of AC_EXEEXT and family.  I know
this is not the final answer, but we *have to* get rid of this
circular dependency.  This is why, although I know it is not perfectly
right, I insist on having a patch which no longer uses AC_LINK_IFELSE.