[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?
From: |
Sebastian Huber |
Subject: |
Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ? |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Sep 2002 21:47:16 -0700 |
Hello!
On Sunday 29 September 2002 12:05, you wrote:
> I'm looking here for objections from the AutoConf list.
>
>
> I could probably have a version tonight or tomorrow that ignores the
> copied LANG(C)->LANG(C+) stuff and looks something like this:
>
> AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(library, function, params, [action-if-found],
> [action-if-not-found], [other-libraries])
I've done it this way:
LIBS="$LIBS $TACO_LIBS -lTACOExtensions"
AC_MSG_CHECKING([for TACO extensions library])
AC_TRY_LINK([#include <TACOException.h>],[TACO::errorString(
0)],taco_try=ok,taco_try=failed,)
AC_MSG_RESULT($taco_try)
if test $taco_try = "failed" ; then
AC_MSG_ERROR([it seems that the TACO extension library is not
installed])
fi
> ... really adding "params" in there before the optionals. I could get
> this together, test it myself, and have Sebastian Huber, jlm, and Ossama
> Othman (recent requestors) test it out to see if it works for them.
> Forgive me if I commit syntactical errors; I'm chronically looking
> things up.
>
> The function above would generate a call something like:
>
> AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(<lib>, pipes::pipeCheck, [(char *) "test", (int) 42])
>
> ... generating:
>
> (void) pipes::pipeCheck ((char *) "test", (int) 42)
If you don't include the header file with the namespace and function
declaration you will get a syntax error.
> it would have to match against something like (ignoring return type):
>
> namespace pipes {
>
> int pipeCheck (char *var1, int var2);
>
> };
>
> ...but then do we need to check for objects, too?
Yes, I needed it too, and it works with:
AC_TRY_LINK([#include
<TACOClient.h>],[TACO::Client()],taco_try=ok,taco_try=failed,)
> I would consider that
> on a second-effort (you know, the infamous second-effort: all-singing,
> all-dancing, bloated excessive creeping feature of code... eek!).
>
> We could work this into a generic sense once it's functional.
[...]
- Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Reply To List Only, 2002/09/28
- Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Paul Eggert, 2002/09/29
- Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (reply to list only), 2002/09/29
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Steve M. Robbins, 2002/09/29
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (Reply To List Only), 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Sebastian Huber, 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (Reply to List Only), 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Sebastian Huber, 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?,
Sebastian Huber <=
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (Reply To List Only), 2002/09/30