[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] A better (?) _AC_EXEEXT

From: Pavel Roskin
Subject: Re: [PATCH] A better (?) _AC_EXEEXT
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 11:44:04 -0400 (EDT)

Hello, Morten!

> * Akim
> | I agree there are *two* issues.  One is that there is a AC_REQUIRE
> | circular dependency because AC_EXEXT uses AC_LINK_IFELSE, the other
> | is that both AC_LINK_IFELSE and AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link) are
> | inappropriate here.

This can be solved e.g. with _AC_LINK_IFELSE that is the same as
AC_LINK_IFELSE but accepting _possible_ suffix as argument.

> Aha. How about the attached patch, then?

> +  if (test conftest -ef conftest.exe) >/dev/null 2>&1; then

Why do you want to set ac_exeext to ".exe" is conftest is the same as
conftest.exe? If there is a problem with ac_exeext not being ".exe" try to
reproduce it here instead of relying on "-ef" which may (or may not) drive
old shells crazy.

There is no reason to prefer ".exe" over "" unless there are problems
with the later.

I.e. "cp conftest" may fail - try it here.

> +  # Couldn't use empty suffix, try with suffix commonly used
> +  # on MSWindows platforms.

It's an insult for OS/2 people. Use "DOS-based platforms" or "PC

Also it appears (I haven't tested) that ac_exeext is not guaranteed to be
equal to ac_cv_exeext at the end of the macro.

Pavel Roskin

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]