Re: Portable type definitions for tools

To: "tech-toolchain%NetBSD.org@localhost" <tech-toolchain%NetBSD.org@localhost>
Subject: Re: Portable type definitions for tools
From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:28:31 +0200

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:24:42PM +1000, Luke Mewburn wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:08:00PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
>   | I'm wondering whether we shouldn't just include the macros and ignore
>   | 2.60+ for now.
> 
> Include which macros, where?

Copy AC_TYPE_* to acsite.m4 to include them with our version.

Joerg

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Luke Mewburn

References:
- Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Alan Barrett
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Luke Mewburn
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Love Hörnquist Åstrand
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Joerg Sonnenberger
- Re: Portable type definitions for tools
  - From: Luke Mewburn

Prev by Date: Re: Portable type definitions for tools
Next by Date: Re: src/gnu/dist/gcc incomplete? or what?
Previous by Thread: Re: Portable type definitions for tools
Next by Thread: Re: Portable type definitions for tools
Indexes:

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index