Menu
▾
▴
mesa3d-dev
|
From: Brian P. <br...@va...> - 2001-05-15 04:18:16
|
I'm trying to understand an autoconf problem and am looking for some
answers and/or advice.
Mesa bug 423843 is as follows:
When specified --enable-x86 in command line (in my
case, on Am486 processor I doesn't want to build MMX
support) I don't have compiling of any assembler source
in src/X86.
In configure script there are lines to check whether
binutils support cpuid but where we check if have_x86
variable has "on" value.
But if I specify --enable-x86 in command line value
have_x86 variable has "yes" of "no" value, not "on" or
"off".
Small workaround patch:
*** configure.old Thu Feb 8 05:27:38 2001
--- configure Mon May 14 11:27:51 2001
*************** esac
*** 2684,2689 ****
--- 2684,2694 ----
if test "${enable_x86+set}" = set; then
enableval="$enable_x86"
have_x86=$enableval
+ if test "x$have_x86" = xyes; then
+ have_x86=on
+ else
+ have_x86=off
+ fi
fi
if test "x$have_x86" = xon; then
The basic issue is this: should boolean configuration variables use
the values "yes/no" or "on/off"? There doesn't seem to be any consistency
to this.
If --enable-x86 is specified to configure, $enable_x86 and $have_x86
are set to "yes". But $have_x86 is tested for "on" in several places
in the configure script. Something's wrong.
Is there any reason why "yes/no" shouldn't be used everywhere?
-Brian
|
|
From: Sven M. H. <pe...@gm...> - 2001-05-15 10:04:18
|
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:12:16PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand an autoconf problem and am looking for some
> answers and/or advice.
>
> Mesa bug 423843 is as follows:
>
> When specified --enable-x86 in command line (in my
> case, on Am486 processor I doesn't want to build MMX
> support) I don't have compiling of any assembler source
> in src/X86.
>
> In configure script there are lines to check whether
> binutils support cpuid but where we check if have_x86
> variable has "on" value.
> But if I specify --enable-x86 in command line value
> have_x86 variable has "yes" of "no" value, not "on" or
> "off".
>
> Small workaround patch:
> *** configure.old Thu Feb 8 05:27:38 2001
> --- configure Mon May 14 11:27:51 2001
> *************** esac
> *** 2684,2689 ****
> --- 2684,2694 ----
> if test "${enable_x86+set}" = set; then
> enableval="$enable_x86"
> have_x86=$enableval
> + if test "x$have_x86" = xyes; then
> + have_x86=on
> + else
> + have_x86=off
> + fi
> fi
>
> if test "x$have_x86" = xon; then
>
>
> The basic issue is this: should boolean configuration variables use
> the values "yes/no" or "on/off"? There doesn't seem to be any consistency
> to this.
>
> If --enable-x86 is specified to configure, $enable_x86 and $have_x86
> are set to "yes". But $have_x86 is tested for "on" in several places
> in the configure script. Something's wrong.
>
> Is there any reason why "yes/no" shouldn't be used everywhere?
Are you looking at the right configure.in? As far as I can see yes/no is
consistently used in the latest revision (1.53). I think I can actually
remember stumbling across the yesno/onoff issue myself and cleaning it up.
-Sven
--
"Would the All-Seeing Eye please look in my direction?"
[ KeyID........: 0xC297FEAB ]
[ Fingerprint..: FEA5 0F93 7320 3F39 66A5 AED3 073F 2D5F C297 FEAB ]
|
|
From: Brian P. <br...@va...> - 2001-05-15 13:13:24
|
"Sven M. Hallberg" wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 01:12:16PM -0600, Brian Paul wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to understand an autoconf problem and am looking for some
> > answers and/or advice.
> >
> > Mesa bug 423843 is as follows:
> >
> > When specified --enable-x86 in command line (in my
> > case, on Am486 processor I doesn't want to build MMX
> > support) I don't have compiling of any assembler source
> > in src/X86.
> >
> > In configure script there are lines to check whether
> > binutils support cpuid but where we check if have_x86
> > variable has "on" value.
> > But if I specify --enable-x86 in command line value
> > have_x86 variable has "yes" of "no" value, not "on" or
> > "off".
> >
> > Small workaround patch:
> > *** configure.old Thu Feb 8 05:27:38 2001
> > --- configure Mon May 14 11:27:51 2001
> > *************** esac
> > *** 2684,2689 ****
> > --- 2684,2694 ----
> > if test "${enable_x86+set}" = set; then
> > enableval="$enable_x86"
> > have_x86=$enableval
> > + if test "x$have_x86" = xyes; then
> > + have_x86=on
> > + else
> > + have_x86=off
> > + fi
> > fi
> >
> > if test "x$have_x86" = xon; then
> >
> >
> > The basic issue is this: should boolean configuration variables use
> > the values "yes/no" or "on/off"? There doesn't seem to be any consistency
> > to this.
> >
> > If --enable-x86 is specified to configure, $enable_x86 and $have_x86
> > are set to "yes". But $have_x86 is tested for "on" in several places
> > in the configure script. Something's wrong.
> >
> > Is there any reason why "yes/no" shouldn't be used everywhere?
>
> Are you looking at the right configure.in? As far as I can see yes/no is
> consistently used in the latest revision (1.53). I think I can actually
> remember stumbling across the yesno/onoff issue myself and cleaning it up.
I should have clarified that I'm looking at the mesa_3_4_branch, not
the trunk.
I'm getting ready to make a 3.4.2 release (just bug fixes) for the
sake of a stable XFree86 4.1 release. But for the stand-alone 3.4.2
release I wanted to fix this configure problem.
If you could port your changes from the Mesa trunk to the mesa_3_4_branch
branch that would be great!
Would you also please double check that the help messages printed with
./configure --help consistently use yes/no instead of on/off? I think
that's still a problem.
-Brian
|
|
From: Sven M. H. <pe...@gm...> - 2001-05-16 19:50:35
|
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 07:18:06AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote: > I should have clarified that I'm looking at the mesa_3_4_branch, not > the trunk. OIC. Almost suspected that. > I'm getting ready to make a 3.4.2 release (just bug fixes) for the > sake of a stable XFree86 4.1 release. But for the stand-alone 3.4.2 > release I wanted to fix this configure problem. > > If you could port your changes from the Mesa trunk to the mesa_3_4_branch > branch that would be great! > > Would you also please double check that the help messages printed with > ./configure --help consistently use yes/no instead of on/off? I think > that's still a problem. OK, all done! Regards, Sven -- "Would the All-Seeing Eye please look in my direction?" [ KeyID........: 0xC297FEAB ] [ Fingerprint..: FEA5 0F93 7320 3F39 66A5 AED3 073F 2D5F C297 FEAB ] |
|
From: Brian P. <br...@va...> - 2001-05-16 20:00:30
|
"Sven M. Hallberg" wrote: > > On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 07:18:06AM -0600, Brian Paul wrote: > > I should have clarified that I'm looking at the mesa_3_4_branch, not > > the trunk. > > OIC. Almost suspected that. > > > I'm getting ready to make a 3.4.2 release (just bug fixes) for the > > sake of a stable XFree86 4.1 release. But for the stand-alone 3.4.2 > > release I wanted to fix this configure problem. > > > > If you could port your changes from the Mesa trunk to the mesa_3_4_branch > > branch that would be great! > > > > Would you also please double check that the help messages printed with > > ./configure --help consistently use yes/no instead of on/off? I think > > that's still a problem. > > OK, all done! Thanks, Sven! I have to do some test builds of 3.4.2 yet but I think that was the last task. -Brian |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X