From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23155 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2004 16:44:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 23141 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 16:44:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.10) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 16:44:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 22602 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2004 16:44:11 -0000 Received: from taltos.codesourcery.com (zack@66.92.218.83) by mail.codesourcery.com with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 6 Sep 2004 16:44:11 -0000 Received: by taltos.codesourcery.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 6 Sep 2004 09:44:10 -0700 To: "Giovanni Bajo" Cc: Subject: Re: AC_COMPILE_CHECK_SIZEOF References: <200409051545.i85FjPxh028248@usagi.ingate.se> <87brgk4pgs.fsf@codesourcery.com> <200409052345.i85NjkDn004749@usagi.ingate.se> <87brgk2pla.fsf@codesourcery.com> <0e6f01c4941e$e2b26b90$f503030a@mimas> From: Zack Weinberg Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 16:44:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <0e6f01c4941e$e2b26b90$f503030a@mimas> (Giovanni Bajo's message of "Mon, 6 Sep 2004 16:36:24 +0200") Message-ID: <87wtz71h5x.fsf@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110003 (No Gnus v0.3) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 "Giovanni Bajo" writes: > Zack Weinberg wrote: > >>>> 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. :-) >> >> Yes, well, mainline is the place for not-simple-one-line-fixes. >> Although, we are on the threshold of stage 3 of development, so this >> might be better held for 3.6. > > Why? I thought that Stage 3 was for fixing bugs, even if you need to > rearrange the code or do non trivial changes. It is the release > branch where we fix only regressions, and possibly with one liners. > Am I wrong? No, you're not wrong. But keep in mind that my impression here is that there is no actual bug, although I'm not sure why the original poster wants to change the macro in that case. As such, I'm being rather more conservative about what's an okay change than I might. If the 2.5x AC_CHECK_SIZEOF were a drop-in replacement for our AC_COMPILE_CHECK_SIZEOF - and it certainly ought to be - then I'd be fine with that change during stage 3 even if it fixed no user-visible bugs (since the archaic kludges in the configure script are themselves bugs). And if there are semantic differences, I still might be fine with changing it and fixing up whatever fallout results, but we have to proceed with somewhat more caution. zw