[ This is part 2 of 2 of my answer to the report. ] Hello,
On Thu, Dec 14, 2006 at 02:32:54PM +0200, Andrey Simonenko reported the following regression: The temmplate: > config.h.in: > # define ABC > # define DEF(x) results in: > [...] autoconf-2.59: > /* config.h. Generated by configure. */ > # define ABC > # define DEF(x) > [...] autoconf-2.61: > /* config.h. Generated from config.h.in by configure. */ > # define ABC > # define DEF(x) somevalue Further analysis: I tested the following lines: (The $ sign marks the end-of-line.) 1) #define ABC$ 2) #define ABC $ 3) #define ABC foo$ 4) #define DEF(x)$ 5) #define DEF(x) $ 6) #define DEF(x) foo$ This matrix shows which of the template lines are recognized: 2.59 2.61a 1) n n 2) n y 3) y y 4) n y 5) n y 6) n y (And I have verified that the situation is the same if the #define is replaced by "# define".) So we observe a regression for templates 2), 4), 5), 6). I'm afraid that it was my changes to status.m4 which introduced the regression. Perhaps I intended the case 6) and a ``fix.'' But on a second thought, I think all these regressions are unwanted: Only the 3) is needed to support historical templates, the rest is just undefined behaviour. But since there seem to be no real reason to regress from 2.59, we should try to keep the historical behaviour, at least if it is easy to implement. What do you think? If there is a consensus that the regression should be fixed, I'll try to write a patch. Have a nice day, Stepan Kasal