[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro? |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Apr 2012 09:56:50 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120411 Thunderbird/11.0.1 |
On 04/29/2012 07:11 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
The reason why we do this with explicit #ifs that test for a compiler
brand, not in an "Autoconfish way", is that we use the result in .h
files that should be installable
That makes sense for the definition of _Noreturn in
build-aux/snippet/_Noreturn.h, since that file is
copied into installable .h files. But it makes less
sense for the common Autoconf situation where _Noreturn
is defined in <config.h>; such definitions are not intended
to be copied into installable .h files, and it might make
sense for Autoconf to support that.
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, (continued)
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Russ Allbery, 2012/04/26
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Vincent Lefevre, 2012/04/27
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Paul Eggert, 2012/04/28
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Bruno Haible, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Vincent Lefevre, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Bruno Haible, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Bruno Haible, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Paul Eggert, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Bruno Haible, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Vincent Lefevre, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Paul Eggert, 2012/04/29
- Re: AC_C_NORETURN macro?, Bruno Haible, 2012/04/29