[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99
From: |
Noah Misch |
Subject: |
Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99 |
Date: |
Sun, 9 Jan 2005 18:18:15 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6i |
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:11:45PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> I think the intent of the patch is fine. However, the use of sed is a
> little dangerous IMHO, since it could break on odd CC environment
> variables. It might be a bit cleaner (and safer) to have two
It should only break on odd values of $ac_cv_prog_cc_c89, no? Since we control
those values, we will know if an option arises that might break that `sed' (I do
not suppose that list of options is likely to grow much, though).
> variables that make up $CC (for example $CC_COMPILER and $CC_STANDARD,
> where $CC_COMPILER will contain the compiler name e.g. gcc and
> $CC_STANDARD will contain options to put it into a particular mode
> e.g. -std=gnu99). This will allow them to be changed separately.
One would presumably set CC_COMPILER=$CC at the top of AC_PROG_CC_C89? I
thought about that, but I wanted this to work:
AC_PROG_CC # CC := cc -foo89
CC="$CC -bar" # CC := cc -foo89 -bar
AC_PROG_CC_STDC # CC := cc -bar -foo99
Not a big deal, to be sure, but it worked with former definitions of AC_PROG_CC
and AC_PROG_CC_STDC, so we may as well not break it.
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2005/01/01
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2005/01/03
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Noah Misch, 2005/01/04
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Paul Eggert, 2005/01/04
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Noah Misch, 2005/01/04
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2005/01/05
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99,
Noah Misch <=
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2005/01/12
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Noah Misch, 2005/01/13
- Re: AC_PROG_CC_C99, Roger Leigh, 2005/01/05