From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:10:06 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 170 ************************************************** Sunday 17 August 2003 Number 170 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: autoconf question : Stefan Neis 2 Re: autoconf question : Andreas Buening 3 Re: autoconf question : Thomas Hoffmann **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 14:00:45 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Neis Subject: Re: autoconf question On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Stefan Neis wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > - Changes the AC_CHECK_LIB macro (otherwise link386 causes problems) > > This can be a problem if AC_CHECK_LIB is not quoted correctly. > > Sounds like a likely explanation for my problem. I'll have to check > the AC_CHECK_LIB macros when I find some time to do it ... After adding lots of [] to a set of three nested AC_CHECK_LIB calls, the output of autoconf looks lots better (comparing the two versions with diff shows that it was generating quite some nonsense earlier). However, that just got me to a different error message, there must still be some [] that are missing... :-( Regards, Stefan -- Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'. **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 20:47:43 +0200 From: Andreas Buening Subject: Re: autoconf question Stefan Neis wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Stefan Neis wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Andreas Buening wrote: > > > > > - Changes the AC_CHECK_LIB macro (otherwise link386 causes problems) > > > This can be a problem if AC_CHECK_LIB is not quoted correctly. > > > > Sounds like a likely explanation for my problem. I'll have to check > > the AC_CHECK_LIB macros when I find some time to do it ... > > After adding lots of [] to a set of three nested AC_CHECK_LIB calls, > the output of autoconf looks lots better (comparing the two versions > with diff shows that it was generating quite some nonsense earlier). > > However, that just got me to a different error message, there must > still be some [] that are missing... :-( You can grep in aclocal.m4 whether there are any other AC_CHECK_LIB calls from somewhere else. Usually from the error message you can see before or after which test configure fails. If you send me your configure.in, aclocal.m4 and the output of configure I might be able to see what's missing. Perhaps. ;-) Bye, Andreas **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:28:06 +0200 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: Re: autoconf question I noted something similar in generating configure from configure.[in,ac] using Andreas' autoconf-2.57: syntax errors that went away when I added additional brackets (I discussed this question here a while ago, but nodody could tell if the (few) affected configure.[in,ac]s or autoconf were the problem. The following snippet from a diff should show the necessary changes and may point to the root cause (this was for libxml, R has similar problems) : every call of AC_CHECK_LIB as parameter of another macro had to be bracketed diff -r -x configure libxml2-2.5.9.orig/configure.in libxml2-2.5.9/configure.in 61c61 < AC_CHECK_HEADERS(zlib.h, --- > AC_CHECK_HEADERS(zlib.h,[ 74c74 < fi])) --- > fi])]) 165,167c165,167 < AC_CHECK_FUNC(gethostent, , AC_CHECK_LIB(nsl, gethostent)) < AC_CHECK_FUNC(setsockopt, , AC_CHECK_LIB(socket, setsockopt)) < AC_CHECK_FUNC(connect, , AC_CHECK_LIB(inet, connect)) --- > AC_CHECK_FUNC(gethostent, , [AC_CHECK_LIB(nsl, gethostent)]) > AC_CHECK_FUNC(setsockopt, , [AC_CHECK_LIB(socket, setsockopt)]) > AC_CHECK_FUNC(connect, , [AC_CHECK_LIB(inet, connect)]) Regards, Thomas. Stefan Neis wrote: >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003, Stefan Neis wrote: > > > >>Hello (Andreas), >> >>What exactly are the differences between configure scripts generated by >>autoconf-2.57 for OS/2 and normal autoconf-2.57? >> >> > >OK, I'm going to ask a better question. I installed autoconf-2.57 on my >OS/2 system (README.OS2 is dated 19.12.02, if that helps to identify the >version I'm using more clearly). Now, whenever I regenerate configure for >wxWindows-2.5 on my system and run the script, I get errors like this: >../../configure.os2[31259]: syntax error: `done' unexpected > >However, if I "manually" change backward to forward slashed, manually set >ac_executable_extensions and then run the configure script generated on >Unix, everything does work as expected, no syntax errors. Any idea? >Miss-Installation of autoconf? Or is this a bug in the OS/2 specific code? > >BTW, while it makes no difference in the resulting script whether I run >autoconf under sh (from pdksh) or under ash, running it under ash is >considerably faster. > > Regards, > Stefan > > -- Thomas Hoffmann Telephone: 49-351-4598831 thoffman at zappa.sax.de Dresden, Germany ..sig under construction ...