X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To: "'Laurynas Biveinis'" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Cc: <bug-autoconf AT gnu DOT org>, <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re[4]: AC_PROG_CXX does not work correctly after AC_PROG_CC
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:36:46 +0200
Message-ID: <000001c1eb06$963d5ea0$f07d76d5@zastaixp>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416
In-Reply-To: <1313279054.20020422222613@softhome.net>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> > My suggestion would probably be to
> >   a) have the EXEEXT tests fail graciously (i.e. have them
> >      give a 'warning: cannot determine executable extension
> >      using the <LANG> compiler', and not set any findings (so
> >      possible following AC_PROG_<COMPILER> calls can find it
> >      out properly).
> 
> Why? EXEEXT works like a sanity check for a compiler.  As I understand
> it, it bombs only if it cannot find an executable made by compiler.

Well, it's not really a sanity check, as it's only run for the first
compiler requested.  My point would be that on a system that has only
a C compiler, checking for CXX, then CC should behave the same as
checking for CC, then CXX.  Currently it doesn't, as the EXEEXT test
bombs out.  If it had deferred a decision, the check for CC afterwards
would have determined the correct EXEEXT.

> >   b) have the AC_PROG_<compiler> either bomb out if the
> >      requested compiler is not available, or set the respective
> >      variable to 'none', so scripts can decide what to do.
> 
> I've seen in mailing list archives that this feature (making checks
> optionals by user) was already considered couple of years ago,
> however, there are still no signs of actual implementation.

Well, in the case of AC_PROG_CXX, you can sort of detect the
no-compiler-found case by checking if CXX is g++ and GXX is not 'yes'.