Re: [PATCHv4] _AC_DO _AC_DO_STDERR: Evaluate argument twice

[Nikolai Merinov]

Hi Zack,

I submitted the issue as
https://savannah.gnu.org/support/index.php?110395 and sent copyright
assignment request to assign@gnu.org

I'll try to provide better test coverage tomorrow.

Regards,
Nikolai

Zack Weinberg <zackw@panix.com> writes:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 2:51 AM Nikolai Merinov
> <nikolai.merinov@member.fsf.org> wrote:
>>
>> I already supplied this patch in March this year but did not get
>> feedback yet. Currently I updated patch according to actual autoconf
>> code. Could you please review it once again?
>
> Thank you for reminding us about your contribution.
>
> I regret to say that this change is too risky to accept two days
> before the planned 2.70 release.  Also, In order to accept it, we
> would need you to file a copyright assignment for Autoconf.  If you
> have already done this just say so; otherwise please read and follow
> the instructions at
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnulib.git/tree/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future
> .  Cite this patch (by URL in the autoconf-patches email archive)
> under "what changes have you made so far."
>
> Please also file a tracking bug for this change at
> https://savannah.gnu.org/support/?func=additem&group=autoconf so we
> don't forget about it again.
>
> Finally, I haven't reviewed the code in detail but I would like to see
> more comprehensive tests. Right now you're only testing one word in
> quotes in CFLAGS; blindly stripping the quotes would do the right
> thing.  If I understand your goal correctly, you should be testing
> things like `configure CC="cc -std=c89"` and
> `CPPFLAGS="-Dfunction_like_macro(with, arguments)=..."` (put something
> in the ... that actually uses the arguments).  Please also try to
> think of situations where double evaluation would do the *wrong*
> thing; that will help us understand the potential negative
> consequences of this change.
>
> zw