[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.49e problems with gcc
From: |
Tim Van Holder |
Subject: |
Re: 2.49e problems with gcc |
Date: |
Thu, 10 May 2001 19:23:03 +0200 |
> you have to code-around it rather than simply remove them
> (can escape '[' by '[[', for instance).
Hmm - allow me to exclaim 'Duh!'. I guess I should've been
more precise:
"I removed all changequote's, replaced the replacement quotes
by [/] and doubled existing [/]'s where appropriate. This
allowed configure to run properly (no recursion error)."
As for Akim's statement: changequote is clearly to blame here;
is there no way for autoconf to detect such problems before
invoking m4?
And as for the autoheader problem: is it supposed to fail
silently (as it does for me), or is it supposed to tell me
what went wrong (running the traces.sh it leaves behind _does_
give me output telling me where to look for problems; running
autoheader gives no output).
- 2.49e problems with gcc, Matthew Schalit, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Matthew Schalit, 2001/05/09
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Thomas Dickey, 2001/05/09
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc,
Tim Van Holder <=
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/10
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/12
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/12
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/16