Re: [Opencxx-users] OpenC++ 2.8 is out!

[Yann D. <yd...@us...>]

On Thu, Sep 16, 2004 at 07:49:53PM +0800, Grzegorz Jakacki wrote:
> Hi Yann!
> 
> Yann Dirson wrote:
> >Thanks for your great work, Grzegorz !
> 
> Great things are still to come!... (OpenC++ Core Lib)

Yes, I've read about that :)


> >Adding
> >"enable_gc=yes" before AC_ARG_ENABLE fixes the problem.
> 
> Cool, but this means gc test were fakes :-(

Is it a test you just copied from the gc package ?

> >But now, or if I just force it to yes using --enable-gc I get:
> >
> >| checking whether to use garbage collector... yes
> >| checking whether -lgc provides GC_malloc... yes
> >| checking gc.h usability... no
> >| checking gc.h presence... no
> >| checking for gc.h... no
> >| configure: error: gc.h not found; set up paths or --disable-gc
> >
> >It is apparently not looking for <gc/gc.h>, which would have allowed
> >to find it.  
> 
> I think it should look for <gc.h>, not <gc/gc.h> (and it does, 
> configure.in:188). Why do you think it should be <gc/gc.h> ???

Because I have an /usr/include/gc/gc.h and /usr/include/gc/gc_cpp.h
but no /usr/include/gc.h, and the <gc/gc_cpp.h> test succeeds.

OTOH, we could test for <gc.h> only <gc/gc.h> does not exist - the
reverse might find an outdated gc.h on some (broken) boxes.


> >OTOH, it does not seem to be used, so this particular
> >test can possibly be dropped.
> 
> I am not sure I understand. Do you mean that testing for <gc/gc_cpp.h> 
> is enough? If this is really the case, I agree.

If the occ code does not #include it directly, I don't think we should
make assumptions about what gc_cpp.h needs - the failure I experienced
seems to demonstrate this :)


> >Any objections to these changes ?
> 
> No. Could you apply?

Sure !

Best regards,
-- 
Yann Dirson    <yd...@al...> |
Debian-related: <di...@de...> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    |  Freedom, Power, Stability, Gratis
     http://ydirson.free.fr/        | Check <http://www.debian.org/>