bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-21 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Eric. On 01/19/2013 03:25 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/19/2013 06:10 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> [-cc automake-patches] >> >> On 01/16/2013 06:48 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >>> On 01/16/13 04:46, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Makes sense. Should I try to implement something along these lines

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-19 Thread Eric Blake
On 01/19/2013 06:10 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > [-cc automake-patches] > > On 01/16/2013 06:48 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 01/16/13 04:46, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Makes sense. Should I try to implement something along these lines (might >>> take a few days), or are you planning to do tha

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-19 Thread Stefano Lattarini
[-cc automake-patches] On 01/16/2013 06:48 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 01/16/13 04:46, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Makes sense. Should I try to implement something along these lines (might >> take a few days), or are you planning to do that yourself (in which case >> I'll avoid the duplicated eff

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-16 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 01/16/2013 07:24 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > On 01/16/2013 10:48 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: >> On 01/16/13 04:46, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >>> Makes sense. Should I try to implement something along these lines (might >>> take a few days), or are you planning to do that yourself (in which case >>> I'll

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-16 Thread Eric Blake
On 01/16/2013 10:48 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 01/16/13 04:46, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> Makes sense. Should I try to implement something along these lines (might >> take a few days), or are you planning to do that yourself (in which case >> I'll avoid the duplicated efforts)? > > I wasn't pla

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-16 Thread Paul Eggert
On 01/16/13 04:46, Stefano Lattarini wrote: > Makes sense. Should I try to implement something along these lines (might > take a few days), or are you planning to do that yourself (in which case > I'll avoid the duplicated efforts)? I wasn't planning on doing that, so please go ahead.

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics

2013-01-16 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 01/15/2013 04:16 AM, Paul Eggert wrote: > 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 be

bug#13378: 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

bug#13378: 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

bug#13378: 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.

bug#13378: Cleaning up AC_PROG_CC_C_O semantics (was: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Automatically call AM_PROG_CC_C_O as required.)

2013-01-14 Thread Stefano Lattarini
[+cc bug-autoconf] Reference: On 01/13/2013 10:06 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: > On 2013-01-13, Stefano Lattarini wrote: >> On 01/13/2013 09:01 PM, Nick Bowler wrote: >>> +dnl Automatically invoke AM_PROG_CC_C_O as necessary. Since AC_PROG_CC i