[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co |
Date: |
Wed, 30 May 2007 23:37:02 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.2.2i |
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 09:57:57AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:
> > IMVHO the ac_cv_c_ prefix should be changed to ac_cv_type_ here.
>
> The former expands to an actual type (e.g., 'unsigned char') whereas
> the latter expands to 'yes' or 'no'. So they're not quite the same, no?
I completely missed that point.
> I suppose things could be handled more felicitously, but I don't see a
> bug in the current approach.
Then I agree with you that it's best to keep it as it is.
Sorry, Patrick, that my hasty proposal meant you wated some time
writing your latest patch. Lets stay with
#if defined(HAVE_INT64_T) || defined(int64_t)
Stepan
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, (continued)
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/28
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
- Message not available
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/29
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Stepan Kasal, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co,
Stepan Kasal <=
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/31
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Patrick Welche, 2007/05/29
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co, Paul Eggert, 2007/05/29