This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [rfc] configury: CC_HAS_UINTPTR_T
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 19:08:09 -0500
- Subject: Re: [rfc] configury: CC_HAS_UINTPTR_T
- References: <200302252321.h1PNLfa13347@duracef.shout.net>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 05:21:41PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote:
> This is my first 'configure' patch, so I don't expect it to pass on
> the first draft. If there's anything I need to know about this
> kind of stuff, tell me please.
>
> This patch just adds CC_HAS_UINTPTR_T. After this patch, I'll write
> patches to procfs.c and gdb_thread_db.h to use the new variable, so that
> they can put out a more informative compile error than the dreck that
> they cough up right now. I've seen several reports from the field where
> this actually happens (pr gdb/660 is one case).
Could you call it something different? Autoconfism for this would be
HAVE_UINTPTR_T. You say yourself that it's a property of the C
library, not of the CC.
> +dnl See if C library supports "uintptr_t" type.
> +dnl AC_CHECK_TYPE is not enough because this type lives in a header file.
> +
> +AC_MSG_CHECKING(for uintptr_t in C library)
> +AC_CACHE_VAL(gdb_cv_c_uintptr_t,
> +[AC_TRY_RUN([
No no. Use AC_TRY_COMPILE; never run a test that you don't actually
need runtime output for.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer