Re: configure speedup proposal: add --assume-c99 and --assume-posix2008 flags
Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/23/2014 01:24 AM, John Spencer wrote: and for posix - sizeof int == 4 - have select() - etc These assumptions are unsafe, esp. on non-mainstream architectures/OSes, which only partially implement c99. E.g. it's not that uncommon to find toolchains for embedded platforms which implement most of C99, but with sizeof int != 4 or without "select()". well, noone forces you to use --assume-compliant-c99. as outlined in my previous responses, the usage is *optional* and *not default* and you would only use it on known non-broken platforms (i.e. those that implement C99 to the letter of the standard, for example linux + musl libc). ___ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
Re: configure speedup proposal: add --assume-c99 and --assume-posix2008 flags
On 03/23/2014 01:24 AM, John Spencer wrote: there are many configure scripts out there that still check for things that are standard since at least 10 years, and doing this extensively and over and over (people building software themselves usually build more than one package) consumes a lot of time (especially due to the non-parallel nature of configure scripts). often configure scripts take longer to finish than compiling the source code itself on decent machines with multiple cpu cores. having an option like --assume-c99 could provide a shortcut so all checks like - have stdint.h - have snprintf() - etc and for posix - sizeof int == 4 - have select() - etc These assumptions are unsafe, esp. on non-mainstream architectures/OSes, which only partially implement c99. E.g. it's not that uncommon to find toolchains for embedded platforms which implement most of C99, but with sizeof int != 4 or without "select()". Ralf ___ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
