Re: [PATCH wwwdocs] gcc-14: Some very common historic Autoconf probes that no longer work

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024, Florian Weimer wrote:
> +
> +Older Autoconf versions (for example, Autoconf 2.13) generate core
> +probes that are incompatible with C99.  These include the basic
> +compiler functionality check:
:
:

Yes, thank you!

Gerald

PS: Feel free to copy me on wwwdocs patches.

Re: [PATCH wwwdocs] gcc-14: Some very common historic Autoconf probes that no longer work

[Sam James]

Florian Weimer  writes:

> ---
>  htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html | 43 
> +++
>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
> index 123b5e9f..ab65c5e7 100644
> --- a/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
> +++ b/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
> @@ -437,6 +437,49 @@ issues addressed in more recent versions.)  Versions 
> before 2.69 may
>  have generic probes (for example for standard C support) that rely on
>  C features that were removed in C99 and thus fail with GCC 14.
>  
> +
> +Older Autoconf versions (for example, Autoconf 2.13) generate core
> +probes that are incompatible with C99.  These include the basic
> +compiler functionality check:
> +
> +
> +#include "confdefs.h"
> +main(){return(0);}
> +
> +
> +And a check for standard C compatibility:
> +
> +
> +#define XOR(e, f) (((e) && !(f)) || (!(e) && (f)))
> +int main () { int i; for (i = 0; i  256; i++)
> +if (XOR (islower (i), ISLOWER (i)) || toupper (i) != TOUPPER (i)) exit(2);
> +exit (0); }
> +
> +

Consider adding the check name so it shows up on search engine results?

("Checking for $X ... no")

> +(Several variants with different line breaks and whitespace were in
> +use.)  If it is not possible to port the configure script to current
> +Autoconf, these issues can be patched directly:
> +
> +
> +#include "confdefs.h"
> +int main(){return(0);}
> +
> +
> +And for the second probe:
> +
> +
> +#define XOR(e, f) (((e) && !(f)) || (!(e) && (f)))
> +int main () { int i; for (i = 0; i  256; i++)
> +if (XOR (islower (i), ISLOWER (i)) || toupper (i) != TOUPPER (i)) 
> return 2;
> +return 0; }
> +
> +
> +There is a long tail of less frequent issues, involving keyword
> +checking (for inline), and checks for dlopen
> +and mmap.  A setvbuf probe was previously
> +expected to fail at run time because it triggered undefined behavior,
> +now it fails because of a compilation error.
> +
>  Turning errors back into warnings
>  
>  

LGTM otherwise.

>
> base-commit: 1fcd61437d6a3d7bf24b993b09d525486dc9a2e5



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

[PATCH wwwdocs] gcc-14: Some very common historic Autoconf probes that no longer work

[Florian Weimer]

---
 htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html | 43 +++
 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+)

diff --git a/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html b/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
index 123b5e9f..ab65c5e7 100644
--- a/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
+++ b/htdocs/gcc-14/porting_to.html
@@ -437,6 +437,49 @@ issues addressed in more recent versions.)  Versions 
before 2.69 may
 have generic probes (for example for standard C support) that rely on
 C features that were removed in C99 and thus fail with GCC 14.
 
+
+Older Autoconf versions (for example, Autoconf 2.13) generate core
+probes that are incompatible with C99.  These include the basic
+compiler functionality check:
+
+
+#include "confdefs.h"
+main(){return(0);}
+
+
+And a check for standard C compatibility:
+
+
+#define XOR(e, f) (((e) && !(f)) || (!(e) && (f)))
+int main () { int i; for (i = 0; i  256; i++)
+if (XOR (islower (i), ISLOWER (i)) || toupper (i) != TOUPPER (i)) exit(2);
+exit (0); }
+
+
+(Several variants with different line breaks and whitespace were in
+use.)  If it is not possible to port the configure script to current
+Autoconf, these issues can be patched directly:
+
+
+#include "confdefs.h"
+int main(){return(0);}
+
+
+And for the second probe:
+
+
+#define XOR(e, f) (((e) && !(f)) || (!(e) && (f)))
+int main () { int i; for (i = 0; i  256; i++)
+if (XOR (islower (i), ISLOWER (i)) || toupper (i) != TOUPPER (i)) return 
2;
+return 0; }
+
+
+There is a long tail of less frequent issues, involving keyword
+checking (for inline), and checks for dlopen
+and mmap.  A setvbuf probe was previously
+expected to fail at run time because it triggered undefined behavior,
+now it fails because of a compilation error.
+
 Turning errors back into warnings
 
 

base-commit: 1fcd61437d6a3d7bf24b993b09d525486dc9a2e5