Re: (Off-Topic) Autoconf

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Wed, 2005-10-12 at 19:41 +0200, address@hidden wrote:
>    Have you look at any of the "macro is defined" checks recently?
>    They are performed by building a small test file and attempting to
>    compile it on the target platform.
> 
> They aren't compiled, it only handled by the C preprocessor (in the
> case of C macros).

Go look again.

But in any case, how do I run the C preprocessor on my wristwatch from
my Linux machine? The wristwatch doesn't *have* a C preprocessor.

>    >    how exactly do you test the integer size on a cross target?
>    > 
>    > By not depending on the integer size.
> 
>    Please explain how to do that in a C program?
> 
> sizeof?

Good. Now I wish to do integer computation of known required precision.
Please explain how I state the correct integer types to use. Note that
sizeof() is an expression, and cannot be used in either an ifdef or a
type declaration.

Hint: this problem was bad enough that C99 felt compelled to add a whole
new header to deal with it because the issues were impossible to solve
portably within the existing C language. You are throwing out glib
solutions that don't work. You haven't even really thought about them.

>    It's getting better, but it's not there yet. Some of the ways in
>    which it is getting better are highly linux-centric. The GCC cross
>    build is *much* less friendly for non-UNIX targets than it used to
>    be.
> 
> It doesn't have to be friendly to non-UNIX targets.  GCC is the GNU
> projects compiler, not the UNIX compiler.

Little boy, I was working on GCC right about the time you were learning
to read your first picture book. Do not pontificate to *me* about who
GCC is for. From Richard I will take that (without, I might add, taking
it terribly seriously). He has earned the right, because much of the
earliest version of GCC was his work. What are *you* contributing (other
than complaints and whining)?


shap