Re: [PATCH] Revert 'Fix logic error in _AC_PROG_LEX_YYTEXT_DECL (#109320)'

Ross Burton <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.patches
Message-ID <CAAnfSTuTNZstr5-9S5PMEqVetL6vBv7siFEYmCgG80pNUqhvxw@mail.gmail.com>
I just tested current master and we're working again:

checking for flex... flex
checking for lex output file root... lex.yy
checking for lex library... none needed
checking whether yytext is a pointer... yes

Sorted.

Is it time that autoconf gets some CI to actually exercise all these
paths?  It's own 'make check' followed by building a selection of
representative software seems like it shouldn't be *too* difficult.

Ross

On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 at 01:50, Paul Eggert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 7/16/20 11:40 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > I believe that what's in trunk now should work fine for
> > cross-compilation of programs that don't require yywrap
>
> I thought so too, but after eyeballing the trunk a bit I noticed a shell
> portability bug in the recently-added AC_PROG_LEX code. I then found a couple
> more instances of the same bug elsewhere in Autoconf (in rarely-executed code, I
> think).
>
> The problem is that constructs like ${ac_lib:-none needed} don't conform to
> POSIX, as POSIX requires that the stuff after the :- be a single shell word.
> (The next time I meet Steve Bourne I want to give him an earfull....)
>
> I installed a doc patch describing the portability pitfall into Savannah master:
>
> https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git/commit/?id=2ff883c27e55b0c0d4a448614c1dee0492c9a7da
>
> and would like to also install the attached patch to fix the code bugs. I have
> held off installing this latter patch, though, as I don't want to get in the way
> of whatever testing you're doing.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.