Re: [PATCH] A better (?) _AC_EXEEXT

[Akim Demaille]

| Hello, Morten!
| > * Akim
| > | I agree there are *two* issues.  One is that there is a AC_REQUIRE
| > | circular dependency because AC_EXEXT uses AC_LINK_IFELSE, the other
| > | is that both AC_LINK_IFELSE and AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link) are
| > | inappropriate here.
| 
| This can be solved e.g. with _AC_LINK_IFELSE that is the same as
| AC_LINK_IFELSE but accepting _possible_ suffix as argument.

I still don't understand well this suffix discussion.  Yes,
AC_LINK_IFELSE uses ac_link which is

ac_link='${CC-cc} -o conftest$ac_exeext $CFLAGS $CPPFLAGS $LDFLAGS
conftest.$ac_ext $LIBS >&AC_FD_LOG'

but then it only means we have to set ac_exeext before running
AC_LINK_IFELSE, right?  I have to read what Morten wrote again, I
forgot :)



| > Aha. How about the attached patch, then?
| 
| > +  if (test conftest -ef conftest.exe) >/dev/null 2>&1; then
| 
| Why do you want to set ac_exeext to ".exe" is conftest is the same as
| conftest.exe? 

No idea, I guess Morten has his own idea about that :)




How about this patch first?  Pavel, if you OK it and I don't appear to
apply it (I'm going to leave soon), could you apply it?  Thanks!

diffs
Description: Text document