[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61 |
Date: |
Thu, 5 Jun 2008 18:28:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) |
Hello,
I'd like to propose a solution, please speak up if you are not
satisfied with it. (If we reach an agreement, I'm willing to prepare
a patch later.)
First, let me state that, strictly speaking, this is not a
regression. The Autoconf manual says that the #undef line cannot
contain anything after the symbol. And in that case, all versions
tested by Ralf do the same.
Does anyone know whether comments on #undef lines and #define lines
are portable? I always thought that #undef comments were not
portable and #define comments could at least became part of the body
of the macro definition. I thought this were the reason why these
comments were generally frown upon.
If that were true, than I would prefer deleting the rest of the line
after #undef since it might make the resulting header more portable.
About the case of #undef OTHER_SYMBOL being commented out, I suggest
to preserve that behaviour, or someone will get trapped by that
change and report a regression. ;-)
I suggest to add a note to the manual along these lines:
``
Generally speaking, all #define and #undef directives in the header
template may be modified by config.status, under some circumstances.
Consequently, if you need to define or undefine a symbol under some
circumstances (#ifdef THIS #define THAT, etc.), you should place
those directives outside the config headers. If you absolutely need
to hook that to the config header itself, please put these directives
to a separate file, and #include it from the config header template.
(If you are using autoheader, you would probably use AH_TOP or
AH_BOTTOM to inject the #include directive.
For certain symbold it is important to avoid #undef ... [explanation
about _POSIX_WHATEVER].
To achive this, current Autoconf comments out _all_ remaining #undef
directives remaining in the config header at the end of the
instatiation, but this may change in future releases.
''
WDYT?
Stepan
- regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Karsten Hopp, 2008/06/04
- Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/06/04
- Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Eric Blake, 2008/06/17
- Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/18
- Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/06/18
- Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Stepan Kasal, 2008/06/18
- Re: regression in autoconf-2.62 vs. 2.61, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/06/19