Re: AC_PROG_CC not working

[Akim Demaille]

>>>>> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <address@hidden> writes:

Peter> Akim Demaille writes:
>> Anyway, I am still against the possibility to specify a list of
>> compilers for AC_PROG_CC, CXX etc.  I think we will never stop
>> having problem with this feature :(

Peter> This feature is extremely useful, because the default list is
Peter> pretty useless for some platforms and packages.

Then it means the list is wrong.  It's Autoconf which has to be
fixed.  It's the tests that must be more accurate.

Very architecture depend issues, such as find *the* compiler, will
probably never be properly handled by Autoconf.  It is the installer
which has the best knowledge, and it is her that should pass to
configure the right values.

Again, something which is extremely important with configures is that
they must behave the same way.  Having different flavors of AC_PROG_CC
seems wrong to me because it means the installer can not depend on
some expected behavior.

IMHO, the right solution is to have a good configure in the sense that
it should check that the required features are supported, and then
*die* if it can't find a suitable compiler.  *Then* the installer can
teach it the CC to use.

I'm not saying there is no problems here, I'm saying this is not,
imho, the right answer.  We are departing from the philosophy of
Autoconf when we teach a list of names we like or dislike.

Really, giving a list of compilers seems bad to me.  It should be the
same list for everybody, i.e., let's fix the Autoconf builtin list if
its wrong, but let's not go for various flavors of configure.