RE: Interix cc compiler suddenly fails tests in new 64bit SUA 6.1 RC1

2008-01-04 Thread Jerker Bäck
BTW, would it not be a good idea to make the tests ignore the debug database files? The PGI C/C++/Fortran compiler generates *.dwf files. The MS/Intel C/C++ compiler generates *.pdb files.

RE: new AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS breaks Interix?

2007-10-21 Thread Jerker Bäck
As I understand, this problem is due to old gnulib's m4 macros overriding and breaks autoconf. This solution worked for me: In the release package 1) delete m4/extensions.m4 2) comment out any AC_REQUIRE([AC_GNU_SOURCE]) in /m4 directory and/or replace them with

RE: new AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS breaks Interix?

2007-10-20 Thread Jerker Bäck
Most likely, stale files, where your aclocal.m4 is including an old definition that has a different dependency order than the new gnulib definition. I've seen similar errors, and the solution was a fresh bootstrap, including gnulib-tool --import. With aclocal --force? That awfully

RE: Intrinsic functions fails AC_CHECK_FUNCS test

2007-08-24 Thread Jerker Bäck
functions are not implemented in the Interix SDK // However, they can be used as intrinsic functions. // // created by Jerker Bäck 2007-08-23 for bug-autoconf@gnu.org #pragma once #ifdef __cplusplus extern C { #endif #if defined(_MSC_VER) defined(USE_INTRINSIC) // intrinsic string functions

RE: test for restrict fails with MS compiler

2007-07-20 Thread Jerker Bäck
Hello Ralf, I seem to have a habit of forgetting to add the group http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.general/7628. Ah, I see where you got this from. Well, maybe you're right. I will be using the MS implementation of restrict and see if I run into problems. There could be a

RE: test for restrict fails with MS compiler

2007-07-19 Thread Jerker Bäck
Hello Noah, As Ralf said, `AC_C_RESTRICT' supports your compiler precisely as intended: it defines away the `restrict' keyword, which your compiler implements incorrectly No, I'm not so sure about that. Indeed, I'm convinced the compiler implements the keyword exactly as intended.

RE: test for restrict fails with MS compiler

2007-07-19 Thread Jerker Bäck
Hello Ralf, You would have a case with this first issue if you could prove that defining away `restrict' is a problem with MSVC. No, it should not cause any problem. Second, a claim that MSVC fully implements restrict as conforming to C99, is wrong, we've gone through this before. You

test for restrict fails with MS compiler

2007-07-10 Thread Jerker Bäck
The MS compiler fails the test for the __restrict keyword Like this: typedef int * int_ptr; int foo (int_ptr __restrict ip) // C2219: syntax error But this works OK: typedef int * __restrict int_ptr; int foo (int_ptr ip)// OK which make sense - not allowing

Version defines in config.h

2006-12-07 Thread Jerker Bäck
Is there a way to get the following defines to be written to config.h during configure? #define FILEVERSION_MAJOR 1 #define FILEVERSION_MINOR 2 #define FILEVERSION_RELEASE 3 #define FILEVERSION_BUILD 1 #define FILEVERSION_BETA0// TRUE 1 or

AC_FUNC_SETVBUF_REVERSED - shouldn't it be the other way around?

2006-11-27 Thread Jerker Bäck
Hello all, The AC_FUNC_SETVBUF_REVERSED macro seems to be fairly common and used in a number of tools (ex GNU make). The macro always fails to test the MS compiler resulting in the wrong #define SETVBUF_REVERSED 1, but succeed in testing gcc. In this case, both compilers are using the same

Re: autoconf test failures - how to react?

2006-05-09 Thread Jerker Bäck
Looks like you forgot quotes. Try $ perl 'system(echo foo | /bin/m4)' Thanks Eric $ perl -e 'system(echo foo | /bin/m4)' foo $ I take it the test results are basically OK and the paket can be used as is. As Interix is based on BSD it would be interesting to see how it compares to other BSD

SV: autoconf test failures - how to react?

2006-05-09 Thread Jerker Bäck
IMVHO we can ignore failures that are obviously due to system-specific bugs in Interix tools, unless someone can provide us with a good analysis, enabling a decent workaround. I've posted the failed results in the /tools forum at Interop Systems Hopefully - eventually - a good analysis can

Re: autoconf test failures - how to react?

2006-05-07 Thread Jerker Bäck
225: AC_TYPE_INT64_TWindows NT Exception (core dumped) That's an interesting diagnostic. I suspect this come from GNU sed since it disappear with BSD sed I need to recompile sed more carefully 12: autoupdating AC_PREREQ FAILED (tools.at:570) makes it look like the Perl

Re: autoconf test failures - how to react?

2006-05-04 Thread Jerker Bäck
Thanks for the replies My apologies for the duplicate posts - I became impatient when the post didn't show up, sorry for that. A nice system to test on. Actually, only GNU m4 1.4.4 should be necessary. Do things change if you use the BSD sed and make, instead of GNU sed and GNU make? Yes,

autoconf test failures - how to react?

2006-05-03 Thread Jerker Bäck
Hello autoconf users I have build autoconf-2.59c (ftp source) for Interix and the build process went on with no problems. When I run 'make check' some tests fails. Please help me to evaluate the seriosness of these failed tests. ERROR: 272 tests were run, 8 failed (5 expected failures). 7 tests