Re: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-14 Thread Paul Eggert
On 01/14/2013 11:56 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > 1. It checks that *both* 'cc' and '$CC' (which might easily be 'gcc' > or 'clang') supports "-c -o" together. Why? If the user has a > broken base vendor compiler, but has installed a better one (say > GCC), why should he still b

Re: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Paul. On 01/14/2013 08:45 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 01/14/13 02:24, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Autoconfers, WDYT? > > I think I'm lost. http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13378 > is a long thread. > Yeah, sorry for not giving a more clear summary. Here are the main grips I (and

Re: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-14 Thread Paul Eggert
On 01/14/13 02:24, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Autoconfers, WDYT? I think I'm lost. http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=13378 is a long thread.