Re: autoconf for type sizes

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr>
 > 
 > Is there any good reason not to use CVS Autoconf?  I mean, let's
 > consider we release it now, or RSN.  So how about moving to 2.49d,
 > which I will `release' today, so that we know if we need to change
 > things for GCC in 2.50.
 > 
 > I fail to understand why people don't want to give a try to 2.49d.
 > It's only delaying problems.  What difference does it make to find a
 > problem with 2.49d as opposed to 2.50?

I guess in some respects we were hoping someone else would suffer the
"problems" and they would be fixed by the time 2.50 was released. :-)

But you make a valid point.  If you're willing to address problems we
find, it's in our own interest to start using the latest autoconf now.

This is safe given that we have branched 3.0 and would only start
using it on the gcc-3.1 CVS trunk.

I can propose a patch to set a new AC_PREREQ in gcc/configure.in.
What value would you suggest I use and what autoconf sources should I
use?  I.e. latest CVS or is there a snapshot tarball you would
recommend?  (We can put this in gcc's "infrastructure" directory.)

I'm curious to see whether our ancient cc testers holler.  Maybe you
could supply us with a C code snippet which tests whether the general
mechanism used by autoconf today works on their compilers and I could
pass that around before we make the leap.  (Perhaps its just a one
line array init.)

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions