[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: please correct my ugly hack
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: please correct my ugly hack |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Jun 2005 20:13:26 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Hi Stepan,
* Stepan Kasal wrote on Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 09:04:17AM CEST:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 06:40:49PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > If I remove caching from AC_CHECK_PROG and AC_CHECK_TOOL, what
> > > _incompatibility_ would it cause?
> > > Would it break some documented behaviour?
> > Yes, caching.
>
> you are right, this is incompatibility.
Yes, I agree with Ralf there.
> But I don't think this would be breaking any documented behaviour,
> as I cannot find any place which says that AC_CHECK_PROGS caches its
> result. In my quick search, I found only a note that "many checks"
> cache their results.
It _is_ documented, albeit a little implicitly.
info Autoconf 'Cache Variable Names'
mentions, how the cache names are built, and
info Autoconf 'Macro Names'
mentions the types, for example `PROG' and `PATH'.
Reading that, plus observing that the corresponding cache names _are_
used would make /me/ innocent user believe they were safe to use.
Regards,
Ralf
- Re: unset variables, was Re: please correct my ugly hack, (continued)
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Stepan Kasal, 2005/06/02
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Stepan Kasal, 2005/06/03
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/06/03
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Stepan Kasal, 2005/06/03
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/06/03
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Bob Friesenhahn, 2005/06/03
- Re: please correct my ugly hack, Stepan Kasal, 2005/06/04
- Re: please correct my ugly hack,
Ralf Wildenhues <=