`configure' Problem: Building within the GCC Tree
bernd.edlinger at hotmail.de
Mon Nov 24 21:08:45 UTC 2014
On Mon, 24 Nov 2014 19:16:28 +0100, Torbjörb Granlund wrote:
> Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at inria.fr> writes:
> Someone is *explicitly* telling GMP to use LEX=nonsense. When
> configure detects that, the most logical behavior seems to be to stop
> and tell the user about it (which is apparently what happens). If no
> LEX was provided and autodetection didn't find one, it would make
> sense to keep going and possibly disable anything (1 demo ?) that
> depends on flex (I didn't check what happens).
> It would be possible to ignore broken explicit options, but I don't
> think that would be an improvement.
> It indeed seems like a poor idea to override the explicit instructions
> of what is usually a user of flesh and blood.
> (I don't know configure well, I am not the one you need to convince,
> etc, so don't take it as a definitive answer from the GMP project,
> just the opinion of someone who may not have all the relevant info)
> Well, I agree, so now we're two. :-)
> Please encrypt, key id 0xC8601622
Yes, that's generally agreed.
On the other hand we want to keep backward compatibile with any
gmp version from gmp-4.3.2 to gmp-6.0.0a.
Our request to you guys would be (in case you are eventually releasing
a new gmp version):
a) Please do not over-react if flex is not working, after all this is a
released tar-ball, the flex / bison files are included as precompiled .c files,
so even the demo does compile as it is, if anybody cares.
It would be enough to remove the "exit" from the configure script IMHO.
Complaining about that badness would be OK of course.
b) Updating to a newer AutoMake version, would be nice too.
That is of course only my personal opinion, and there is no pressure
on you at all.
More information about the gmp-discuss