On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 18:23:27 +0200, Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> said: >> 2) Indeed, why not use `AC_TRY_RUN` with third argument[1]? > I think that using the third argument of AC_TRY_RUN is a bad thing in > general. It encodes a guess on what is supposed to happen. The guess can > be right or wrong, so using it makes the build less reproducible and we > all want reproducible builds, right?
When cross-compiling there needs to be a guess there either way. The way I read it the only step that's skipped when cross-compiling is running the results. If compile does not succeed then it's a "fail", if it succeeds then fourth arg is used if cross-compiling, and if not then (assuming running succeeded) second arg is used. I went with four arg `AC_TRY_RUN` (which I incorrectly referred to earlier as third argument). If this causes any issues when cross-compiling I'm prefectly willing to change. Until then it's in: https://github.com/ThomasHabets/arping/commit/81df2e6243b48f0fa1fbd4bd91c425246bb7fc1a > So if you insist on using RUN checks, I can add the relevant cache > variables[1], I'd be interested in knowing why that would be needed, or indeed how it would change anything. Like you say maybe this bug doesn't have to remain open for that. Feel free to email me directly if you want, and think that's a better venue.
