Thanks to Stefano, most of the issues I was seeing with automake 1.12.2 on Mac OS X 10.7 are gone now. Thanks!
The issue reported below is the only one that is still open. Anybody get something on that? Cheers, Max On 09.07.2012, at 19:04, Max Horn wrote: > Hi there, > > I am currently looking into packaging automake 1.12.1 for Fink > <http://www.finkproject.org/> on Mac OS X 10.7. Doing that, several test > suite failures popped up, which I am now working through to resolve. > > The first one is t/silentcxx-gcc.sh failing. Note that t/silentcxx.sh > incorrectly (!) succeeds. > > There are two problems here: > > 1) The C++ compiler from Sun Studio is named "CC". This caused t/silentcxx.sh > to fail, which was fixed with commit ad5d0be02dd42c200be2ffebb1e062e96a06f80c > in the autonconf git repository. The same fix also needs to be applied to > t/silentcxx-gcc.sh. > > 2) But actually I am happy this was there, because otherwise I wouldn't have > detected this second, more serious bug: On Mac OS X, automake 1.12.1 > incorrectly thinks the C++ compiler is named CC (when really it should be > clang++, c++ or g++). This is because (a( OS X by default uses a case > in-sensitive file system, and so "CC" is equivalent to "cc", and (b) the > automake 1.12.1 code for some reason duplicate some autoconf code for > detecting the C++ compiler, but changed this code, breaking it. To quote > automake's configure.ac: > > <BEGIN QUOTE> > # The list of C++ compilers here has been copied, pasted and edited > # from 'lib/autoconf/c.m4:AC_PROG_CXX' in the Autoconf distribution. > # Keep it in sync, or better again, find out a way to avoid this code > # duplication. > _AM_COMPILER_CAN_FAIL([AC_PROG_CXX(dnl > [aCC CC FCC KCC RCC xlC_r xlC c++ cxx cc++ gpp g++])], > [CXX=false; _AM_SKIP_COMP_TESTS([C++])]) > <END QUOTE> > > But this is what my version of c.m4 contains: > <BEGIN QUOTE> > AC_CHECK_TOOLS(CXX, > [m4_default([$1], > [g++ c++ gpp aCC CC cxx cc++ cl.exe FCC KCC RCC > xlC_r xlC])], > g++) > <END QUOTE> > i.e. the order of the compilers has been changed, and this causes the > breakage above. > > I wonder whether this different order of compilers is intentional -- and why > this is duplicated in automake in the first place? The comment in > configure.ac just says that the list was duplicated, not *why*. It would be > nice if it could be extended to explain just that by somebody who knows :). > > > Finally, out of curiosity: I was wondering why silentcxx-gcc.sh is there -- > and why there isn't a silentcxx-gcc3.sh ? > > > Thanks, > Max > > >
