[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co
From: |
Patrick Welche |
Subject: |
Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co |
Date: |
Wed, 30 May 2007 18:10:43 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-03-22) |
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 02:48:12PM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
> And yes, it sounds inconsistent. IMVHO the ac_cv_c_ prefix should be
> changed to ac_cv_type_ here. What do others think?
I think that
- changing ac_cv_c_ to ac_cv_type_ and
- changing AC_CHECK_TYPES to test for ac_cv_type_ != no rather than = yes
would then make
AC_TYPE_INT64_T
AC_CHECK_TYPES([int64_t])
work as I would expect - if that is what it intended(!) In my ficticious
long long int exists, but not int64_t case:
AC_TYPE_INT64_T doesn't find int64_t, so #defines it to long long int, and
sets ac_cv_type_int64_t='long long int'.
AC_CHECK_TYPES does a AC_CACHE_CHECK for ac_cv_type_int64_t which
is not "no" so HAVE_INT64_T is defined, and I can happily use
#ifdef HAVE_INT64_T in my example.
How does that sound?
Cheers,
Patrick
typepat.diff
Description: Text document
- 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, 2007/05/30
- Re: AC_TYPE_UINT8_T and co,
Patrick Welche <=
- 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