httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Fritsch>
Subject Re: Bumping autoconf AC_PREREQ to 2.60?
Date Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:29:58 GMT
On Sun, 13 Jun 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
> On 06/12/2010 09:07 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
>> On Friday 11 June 2010, Ruediger Pluem wrote:
>>>> Modified: httpd/httpd/trunk/
>>>> URL:
>>>> 951893&r1=951892&r2=951893&view=diff
>>>> ================================================================
>>>> ============== --- httpd/httpd/trunk/ (original)
>>>> +++ httpd/httpd/trunk/ Sun Jun  6 16:54:51 2010
>>>> @@ -170,6 +170,9 @@ dnl PCRE and for our config tests will b
>>>>  AC_PROG_CC
>>>> +dnl Try to get c99 support for variadic macros
>>>> +AC_PROG_CC_C99
>>>> +
>>> This test is only present since autoconf >= 2.60.
>>> Since 2.59 is still delivered with RedHat 4 / 5 this does not work
>>> there, but the error is non fatal.
>> This means it is not a good idea to run buildconf on RH4/5, but a
>> configure created somewhere else with autoconf 2.60 should work fine.
>> So this mainly affects httpd developers.
>> We can either bump AC_PREREQ to 2.60, making it impossible to run
>> buildconf on RH4/5, or we can include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99
>> (about 200 lines) from autoconf 2.60 in httpd's build system. The
>> current state seems like a bad idea, because of the potential to ship
>> a broken configure in release tarballs.
>> Preferences? Is anyone here developing on RHEL?
> I do so partly. This is why I came across this :-). What does AC_PROG_CC_C99
> really do? Not that I am suggesting to remove this call from
> but what does it do? Does it change compiler parameters such that the compiler
> is switched into C99 mode? If yes isn't gcc by default?
> So if this is true my idea would be if it would be possible to just call
> AC_PROG_CC_C99 if autoconf is >= 2.60.

Yes, that's what it does, and no gcc still defaults to c89 by default (I 
am using gcc 4.4). Not having c99 will not cause any real functional 
problems for httpd. The created code will probably be slightly slower and 
the use of APLOG_MAX_LOGLEVEL is not possible without it. So, it's 
definitely not perfect to use autoconf 2.59 but for some people, it may 
still be preferable to having to install a new autoconf.

I don't have 2.59 installed anywhere to test right now. If the lack of 
AC_PROG_CC_C99 just causes a warning, that may be acceptable. Or we may 
print a more readable warning that autoconf 2.60 is recommended using the 
IFDEF method outlined by Rainer. But I don't want to spend much energy for 
special handling of 2.59. If we want to support 2.59, we should just 
include the code for AC_PROG_CC_C99 in our configure script.

View raw message