This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: committed: PR ada/14350 fix
- From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at polimi dot it>
- To: Arnaud Charlet <charlet at ACT-Europe dot FR>
- Cc: Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 15:52:18 +0100
- Subject: Re: committed: PR ada/14350 fix
- References: <20040302142836.GA2601@fencepost> <20040302153622.A23520@dublin.act-europe.fr>
- Reply-to: bonzini at gnu dot org
And you'd think autoconf would be kind enough to generate an error...It's okay, only a matter of style. The autoconf 2.5x style is what I hintd.
Anyway, I had a dream: one day, autoconf will be doomed and a real toolIt will not be used, too much legacy alas. Just like those make
replacements, jam or cons. The only build tool apart from
make/autoconf/automake/libtool that is widely used is ant, but then,
only for Java projects.
properly designed and implemented will be used instead.
Whatever bad can be said of autoconf 2.5x, it also has many advantages,
yet so many people are sticking with old, buggy and less portable
autoconf/automake/libtools. Even gcc itself has started to move only
recently, mostly thanks to Phil Edwards and Nathanael Nerode (in
chronological order) -- and all the bad design decisions that were found
are actually pretty unique to the gcc tree, so can only partly be blamed
on the autoconf developers.
(I'm among those who think autoconf 2.5x should have been named autoconf 3)