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

[Grzegorz J. <ja...@ac...>]

o

Yann Dirson wrote:
> 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 ?

I mean that I was running withoug gc, thinking I run run with it.

>>>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 reverse might find an outdated gc.h on some (broken) boxes.

Yes.

>>>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 :)

Sure.

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

Thanks.

BR
Grzegorz


> 
> Best regards,