Re: Autoconf 2.50 - question

[Raja R Harinath <harinath@cs.umn.edu>]

Hi,

Ben Burton <benb@acm.org> writes:
> Okay, I've seen my way through half of the k* autoconf problems.  Now I'm 
> stuck again.
> 
> Does anyone know what to do with the following 2.13 macros in converting to 
> 2.50?  I've had no success with autoupdate.
> 
> configure:1831: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_CXX_WORKS
> configure:1530: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_CC_WORKS
> configure:1531: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_CC_GNU
> configure:5819: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PATH_X_DIRECT
> configure:1832: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_CXX_GNU
> configure:1544: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_CC_G
> configure:1843: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PROG_CXX_G
> configure:5824: error: possibly undefined macro: AC_PATH_X_XMKMF

Those are internal 'autoconf' macros.  It looks like some of the K_*
macros try to replace AC_PROG_CC, AC_PROG_CXX and AC_PATH_X.  Try the
following:

  1. Replace AC_PROG_CC_WORKS with _AC_PROG_CC_WORKS, and likewise for
     the others (add a leading underscore).

  2. Add the following to the beginning of your acinclude.m4:

       # forward compatibility macros: make autoconf 2.13 look like 2.50
       ifdef([_AC_PROG_CC_WORKS],[],
             [AC_DEFUN([_AC_PROG_CC_WORKS],[AC_PROG_CC_WORKS])])

     and likewise for the others.  (You don't need this step if you
     don't want to support autoconf 2.13).

A more proper fix would be to understand why they're trying to provide
an alternative to AC_PROG_CC/AC_PROG_CXX, and see if there's some
cleaner way to do it.

- Hari
-- 
Raja R Harinath ------------------------------ harinath@cs.umn.edu
"When all else fails, read the instructions."      -- Cahn's Axiom
"Our policy is, when in doubt, do the right thing."   -- Roy L Ash