Bug#357369: autoconf will accept a nonexistent compiler as the second one checked

2006-04-02 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
Hi Stepan, * Stepan Kasal wrote on Sun, Apr 02, 2006 at 12:04:28AM CEST: > On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:02:52PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Martin Michlmayr wrote on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:15:34PM CET: > > > Well, I think in this case some more sanity checks are justified > > yes, you are

Bug#357369: autoconf will accept a nonexistent compiler as the second one checked

2006-04-01 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 05:02:52PM +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Martin Michlmayr wrote on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:15:34PM CET: > > Well, I think in this case some more sanity checks are justified yes, you are right, we should do the check ``whether FOO compiler works'' again for each

Bug#357369: autoconf will accept a nonexistent compiler as the second one checked

2006-03-20 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Martin Michlmayr wrote on Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:15:34PM CET: > * Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-20 12:00]: > > Well, ./configure _could_ do more sanity checks, but the expense is > > obvious: all the people who pass correct parameters would have to > > wait another few seconds. > >

Bug#357369: autoconf will accept a nonexistent compiler as the second one checked

2006-03-20 Thread Martin Michlmayr
* Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-03-20 12:00]: > Well, ./configure _could_ do more sanity checks, but the expense is > obvious: all the people who pass correct parameters would have to > wait another few seconds. Well, I think in this case some more sanity checks are justified because the