acinclude.m4 and wx detection question
От | Raphaël Enrici |
---|---|
Тема | acinclude.m4 and wx detection question |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 427A864A.7050604@club-internet.fr обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: acinclude.m4 and wx detection question
Re: acinclude.m4 and wx detection question |
Список | pgadmin-hackers |
Hi Adam, I have a small question in mind I never asked concerning the way we check for wxwidgets files installed while in configure scripts (for example stc headers). Why don't we try to build small C or C++ examples which includes the required files and check to see if the build failed instead of hardcoding some test on file existance ? Or maybe we could parse the '-I' outputs of wx-confg --cflags or cxxflags to take as a base for the tests ? IMHO we would gain in both portability (it would be easier to take care of specific configuration) and maintenance (no more change needed to acinclude.m4 if we change the version of wxwidgets we support). As an example, my wx-config outputs is this one: wx-config --cflags -I/usr/lib/wx/include/gtk2-unicode-debug-static-2.6-pga3 -I/usr/include/wx-2.6-pga3 -D__WXDEBUG__ -D__WXGTK__ -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -D_LARGE_FILES -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE=1 If I want the configure script to pass with such a configuration, I must patch acinclude.m4 so that it refers to the correct path. If not, it just fails and tells me that I did not install stc which is not true. If we were trying to detect this with a small program like this: #include <wx/stc/stc.h> ... void main(void) { .... } After building it successfully with the wx-config --cflags output passed to the compiler, wouldn't this be sufficient (we may also add a check on the wx version detected if needed) ? Tell me if I missed something. Regards, Raphaël
В списке pgadmin-hackers по дате отправления: