[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: link-warning usage improvements
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: link-warning usage improvements |
Date: |
Thu, 31 Dec 2009 23:38:44 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Eric Blake wrote:
> gl_CHECK_NEXT_HEADERS invokes AC_CHECK_HEADERS under the hood.
Well, it does, but it's not documented. It's an abstraction violation to
exploit this knowledge (even though we do in some places).
> That means several other .m4 file can probably be simplified:
Reducing two invocations of AC_CHECK_HEADERS_ONCE to a single one will
IMO not bring large benefits. I would leave the uses of gl_CHECK_NEXT_HEADERS
alone. Working on the compile-time warning instead of the link warning is
more promising.
Bruno
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, (continued)
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Eric Blake, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Eric Blake, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Eric Blake, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Eric Blake, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Eric Blake, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Eric Blake, 2009/12/31
- Re: link-warning usage improvements, Bruno Haible, 2009/12/31