[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: /lib/cpp again
From: |
Lars J. Aas |
Subject: |
Re: /lib/cpp again |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:17:53 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 02:07:46PM +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Also, (the question might have already been asked, but I confess the
: answer escapes me): why don't we AC_CHECK_TOOL for cpp? And then fall
: back to /lib/cpp if available.
What escapes me is why there is a fallback on /lib/cpp in the first
place. I can agree that /lib/cpp should be tested, but it should not
be the outcome if it fails some simple test. BTW, could missing be
used for this? Make a hack cpp implementation in awk for missing or
something :)
Lars J
--
This is your life and it's ending one minute at a time.