On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
On 06/12/2010 09:07 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in?rev=
951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff
================================================================
============== --- httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/trunk/configure.in Sun Jun 6 16:54:51 2010
@@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b
AC_PROG_CC
AC_PROG_CPP
+dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros
+AC_PROG_CC_C99
+
This test is only present since autoconf >= 2.60.
Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work
there, but the error is non fatal.
This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a
configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine.
So this mainly affects httpd developers.
We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run
buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99
(about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The
current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship
a broken configure in release tarballs.
Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?
I do so partly. This is why I came across this :-). What does AC_PROG_CC_C99
really do? Not that I am suggesting to remove this call from configure.in
but what does it do? Does it change compiler parameters such that the compiler
is switched into C99 mode? If yes isn't gcc by default?
So if this is true my idea would be if it would be possible to just call
AC_PROG_CC_C99 if autoconf is >= 2.60.
Yes, that's what it does, and no gcc still defaults to c89 by default (I
am using gcc 4.4). Not having c99 will not cause any real functional
problems for httpd. The created code will probably be slightly slower and
the use of APLOG_MAX_LOGLEVEL is not possible without it. So, it's
definitely not perfect to use autoconf 2.59 but for some people, it may
still be preferable to having to install a new autoconf.
I don't have 2.59 installed anywhere to test right now. If the lack of
AC_PROG_CC_C99 just causes a warning, that may be acceptable. Or we may
print a more readable warning that autoconf 2.60 is recommended using the
IFDEF method outlined by Rainer. But I don't want to spend much energy for
special handling of 2.59. If we want to support 2.59, we should just
include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99 in our configure script.
