From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-102037-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 7199 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2004 23:45:53 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 7191 invoked from network); 5 Sep 2004 23:45:51 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO usagi.ingate.se) (193.180.23.12)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 5 Sep 2004 23:45:51 -0000
Received: from usagi.ingate.se (IDENT:xJgAvvBac1enluqDeY0iq5Ccj6dT1x37@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by usagi.ingate.se (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i85NjkxR004753
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO);
	Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:45:46 +0200
Received: (from axel_f@localhost)
	by usagi.ingate.se (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i85NjkDn004749;
	Mon, 6 Sep 2004 01:45:46 +0200
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 23:45:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200409052345.i85NjkDn004749@usagi.ingate.se>
From: Jones Desougi <jones@ingate.com>
To: zack@codesourcery.com
CC: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-reply-to: <87brgk4pgs.fsf@codesourcery.com> (message from Zack Weinberg on
	Sun, 05 Sep 2004 10:04:19 -0700)
Subject: Re: AC_COMPILE_CHECK_SIZEOF
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
References: <200409051545.i85FjPxh028248@usagi.ingate.se> <87brgk4pgs.fsf@codesourcery.com>
X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00224.txt.bz2

> For mainline, I think it would be better if you cut us over to
> plain AC_CHECK_SIZEOF, which works correctly when cross-compiling in
> autoconf 2.5x.

That isn't a simple one line fix though. :-)

A brief glance suggests that it may not be that much more, but that
there are subtle differences in behaviour.
Interestingly enough, libjava and fastjar appears to have moved in the
other direction in 2002, for the latter as part of cross-compiling support.

How about starting off with the simple patch to fix the broken macro?

> For 3.4, we'd need to know that there was an actual problem before
> changing anything.  Did you encounter a problem?

There should be no bad effects of this bug for current 3.4.

      /Jones