Re: [Groff] Re: MSVC Port

[Jeff Conrad]

Werner LEMBERG wrote:

> What exactly do you mean with 1.19.2?  The latest release is 1.19, and
> I assume that 1.19.1 identifies the curren CVS, right?

Read twice, send once ...

> I'll do that.  If you have the `diff' program please use the `-u'
> option to generate the diffs.  Otherwise please send me the whole
> changed source files (compressed) privately.

My diff has the c option but not the u option.

> No, it isn't.  EXEEXT determines the extension of the binaries
> produces by the compiler.  If cross-compiling, this might be
> different.
> 
> Tim Van Holder <address@hidden> gave the following answer
> on the bug-autoconf list (you may check the replies at
> http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-autoconf):
> 
>   Another fix is to set ac_executable_extensions to ".exe" (or ".exe
>   .cmd .bat" if you like) in your config.site.  That variable was
>   added for this exact purpose - not all Unixy shells on DOS/Windows
>   return true for 'test -x foo' if only foo.exe exists.
> 
> This is an undocumented feature of autoconf:

Documenting it would help ...  However, even with this set, the test fails.
configure finds cc (MKS front end to MSVC), but tries to run b.out.

> My suggestion was to have a small predefined list of extensions (just
> ".exe", to be precise) to try if the compiler name without extensions
> doesn't work.  Let's see how (and when) the autoconf people will fix
> that.

Seems reasonable enough, but it also should be simple enough to discover
the proper extension.

> Just curious: If you say `CC=cl.exe' and `CXX=cl.exe' does it then
> work without a configure script patch related to EXEEXT?

Yes, as does CC=cl and CXX=cl--for now this would seem the most expedient
workaround.

Jeff Conrad