This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 06:58:46 +0100
- Subject: Re: Discussion about merging Go frontend
- References: <email@example.com> <4CC59F1E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <AANLkTikEy7ER+CkQdWo0XHPoBORvbp8JZ226QFM68PZv@mail.gmail.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4CC60C5E.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4CCBF722.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4CD09461.email@example.com>
* Dave Korn wrote on Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:44:49PM CET:
> On 02/11/2010 15:06, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> > Dave Korn writes:
> >> -AC_SUBST(LTO_FORMAT)
> >> +AC_SUBST(SYM_STYLE)
> > It would seem more natural to use AC_DEFINE here. Any reason not to do
> > that?
> It seems a bit much overkill. There's only a single -D right now, so why
> not pass it straight through? With AC_DEFINE I'd still have to import @DEFS@
> into the makefile, just to get HAVE_CONFIG_H available at build time, and then
> add a config.h with a single #define in it. If there were several symbols to
> define, or if there was already an AC_CONFIG_HEADER, I'd do it, but there
> isn't yet, so why haul all that extra weight?
FWIW, you don't need an AC_CONFIG_HEADER. If you don't have one, @DEFS@
will expand to all the defines defined by AC_DEFINE.