[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Update of sr #110312 (project autoconf): Status: Need Info => Works For Me Open/Closed:Open => Closed ___ Follow-up Comment #12: Since we haven't

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #11, sr #110312 (project autoconf): That's unfortunate. I agree we really need Tomasz's input to make any further progress here. ___ Reply to this item at:

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #10, sr #110312 (project autoconf): @Zack: I cannot reproduce the issue either. For both autoconf 2.69 and 2.69b the tiny configure.ac below yields (wih flex 2.6.4): checking for flex... flex checking for lex output file root... lex.yy checking for lex library... -lfl checking

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #9, sr #110312 (project autoconf): I've gone ahead and applied Jannick's suggested change (commit 15ada9d3a0e46c28c0a3af2357b64bbd14d818a8), since I don't see any way it could _hurt_, but I do not understand why it makes a difference, and I still can't reproduce the original

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #8, sr #110312 (project autoconf): In order to mimic flex's '%option noyywrap', the generated scanner code (inserted between the first and second %%) needs a declaration (or definition) of yywrap _before_ the first %%: Applying diff --git a/lib/autoconf/programs.m4

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Update of sr #110312 (project autoconf): Status:None => Need Info ___ Follow-up Comment #7: I cannot reproduce the problem with this configure.ac: AC_INIT([bug-110312], [1.0])

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #6, sr #110312 (project autoconf): Thanks. I understand how your system is set up now, I think. I still need that minimal configure.ac that reproduces the behavior to make any progress. ___ Reply to this item at:

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #5, sr #110312 (project autoconf): [comment #3 comment #3:] > The output of these commands would also be really helpful: > > nm --defined-only /usr/lib64/libfl.a > nm --dynamic --defined-only /usr/lib64/libfl.so [root@barrel SRPMS]# nm --defined-only /usr/lib64/libfl.a

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #4, sr #110312 (project autoconf): [comment #2 comment #2:] > Could you please construct and send us a minimal configure.ac that reproduces this behavior? Also, it would be helpful to see the output of > > find /lib /usr \( -name 'libl.*' -o -name 'libfl.*' \) -ls

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #3, sr #110312 (project autoconf): The output of these commands would also be really helpful: nm --defined-only /usr/lib64/libfl.a nm --dynamic --defined-only /usr/lib64/libfl.so ___ Reply to this item at:

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #2, sr #110312 (project autoconf): Could you please construct and send us a minimal configure.ac that reproduces this behavior? Also, it would be helpful to see the output of find /lib /usr \( -name 'libl.*' -o -name 'libfl.*' \) -ls

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

Follow-up Comment #1, sr #110312 (project autoconf): Actually seems like I'm a bit wrong. After roll back to autoconf 2.69 the same looks a bit different: ``` checking for flex... flex checking lex output file root... lex.yy checking lex library... none needed ```

[sr #110312] 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro

URL: Summary: 2.69b: broken AC_PROG_LEX macro Project: Autoconf Submitted by: kloczek Submitted on: Tue 15 Sep 2020 08:14:18 PM UTC Category: None Priority: 5 -