On Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 10:33 AM Martin Uecker via Gdb <g...@sourceware.org> wrote: > > Am Mittwoch, dem 03.04.2024 um 16:00 +0200 schrieb Michael Matz: > > [...] > > (And, FWIW, testing for features isn't "complex". And have you looked at > > other build systems? I have, and none of them are less complex, just > > opaque in different ways from make+autotools). > > I ask a very specific question: To what extend is testing > for features instead of semantic versions and/or supported > standards still necessary? This seems like a problematic approach > that may have been necessary decades ago, but it seems it may be > time to move on.
I think it is still needed. As a first example, Musl does not define preprocessor macros to identify itself. The project feels features should be probed at build time with a tool like Autoconf. As a second example, activating code paths, like AVX2 and AVX512, requires ensuring the compiler actually supports the ISA. Building a program on an older distribution with an older compiler could run afoul. Jeff
