Re: [patch] New test+use texinfo @click - @HAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK@ [Re: doc build failure (Re: [patch 04/12] entryval#3: Virtual tail call frames)]

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Monday 10 October 2011 19:47:26, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> +  if makeinfo conftest.texinfo >&5 2>&5; then

Shouldn't this be $(MAKEINFO) instead (like in Makefile.in)?
Though I'm not sure how to do that here.  Maybe
AC_CHECK_PROGS(MAKEINFO, makeinfo) ?

> +if test x"$gdb_cv_have_makeinfo_click" = xyes; then
> +  HAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK="-DHAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK"
> +else
> +  HAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK=""
> +fi
> +AC_SUBST(HAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK)

AC_DEFINE is usualy better for predicate defines, such
as HAVE_FOOS.  But in this is case, I think it's the variable's
name that is confusing.  It should be somethink like MAKEINFO_EXTRA_FLAGS.
(MAKEINFOFLAGS is the moral equivalent of CFLAGS, so we should
leave it reserved for the user.)

if test x"$gdb_cv_have_makeinfo_click" = xyes; then
  MAKEINFO_EXTRA_FLAGS="-DHAVE_MAKEINFO_CLICK"
else
  MAKEINFO_EXTRA_FLAGS=""
fi
MAKEINFO=makeinfo @MAKEINFO_EXTRA_FLAGS@

Thanks!

-- 
Pedro Alves