[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Sep 2006 10:00:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Hello,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 02:41:48PM CEST:
> On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 12:09:49PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Bruno Haible wrote on Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 02:05:26PM CEST:
>
> What about introducing
> AC_LANG_BOOL_COMPILE_IFELSE(prologue, bool-expr, if-true, if-false)
>
> as a public macro? (We would document that it is implemented only for
> the three C languages.)
Probably a good idea.
> > But that public version would have to include the cast to long int,
> > for the HP compiler, which would be at least a bit ugly.
>
> Ralf, could you please give me a reference to the problem?
See the comment in the implementation of AC_CHECK_SIZEOF.
> (My naive opinion is that we should not give up the clean API for
> a problem with a particular vedor.)
IMHO that's the wrong way around. Autoconf is all about existing
limitations and bugs, and its API tries to capture or wrap what is
portably possible. I wonder though whether casting an expression
of some integer type that is either true or false, to long int is
really a limitation (but maybe I remember the problem wrongly).
> But I wonder whether it is worth it to have a special name for a
> trivial and natural combination of two macros.
> Perhaps AC_CACHE_CHECK_INT could be dropped?
* Paul Eggert wrote on Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 11:23:53PM CEST:
>
> It is a close call. It does capture a common pattern, which is used
> twice within Autoconf itself and could be used in Gnulib (in the
> stdint module). But if there's sentiment to drop it, now's the time.
FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion either way.
Cheers,
Ralf
- AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Bruno Haible, 2006/09/01
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/02
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/09/02
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Stepan Kasal, 2006/09/02
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Paul Eggert, 2006/09/02
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Stepan Kasal, 2006/09/04
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/09/04
- Re: AC_COMPUTE_INT's arguments, Stepan Kasal, 2006/09/06