Re: Bizarre test for main in libm

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

On Fri, 2003-05-02 at 08:49, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 09:42:55AM +0100, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > > 
> > > Right.  It might just be a semi-convenient way of getting -lm added to
> > > LIBS if-and-only-if libm is available.  The theory, I think, is that if
> > > libm is available at all, it's probably also required (for us).
> > > 
> > 
> > Ah.  I get it.  I would have said this was non-obvious enough to warrant a 
> > comment, but then I'm not an autoconf expert.
> 
> No, this counts as freaky weird.  I've added a comment to my local tree and
> will check it in in the short-term future, along with other odds and ends,
> assuming nobody else comes up with a better explanation.

Thanks.  Yes, I should definitely have commented this better: I saw the
first message in this thread and thought "Who the heck did that and why
the heck did they do it?" :-)

-- 
Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com>
CodeSourcery, LLC