Commit 145a2b79 authored by panne's avatar panne

[project @ 2003-08-18 14:35:26 by panne]

AC_PROG_LEX really checks for the existence of "lex" when "flex" is
not found, so there is no need for AC_PROG_LEX_STRICT.

Furthermore, flex/lex is not really needed for building GHC, so we
issue only a warning instead of dying when flex and lex are not found.
parent 9e9495e2
......@@ -1129,19 +1129,6 @@ dnl and we don't want to be global namespace polluters.
# LocalWords: fi
dnl
dnl acspecific.m4's defn of AC_PROG_LEX is a bit too permissive, as it
dnl defaults to 'lex' if 'flex' isn't found (without checking whether
dnl 'lex' is actually present along the user's PATH).
dnl
AC_DEFUN(AC_PROG_LEX_STRICT,
[AC_CHECK_PROG(LEX, flex, flex)
if test -z "$LEX"
then
AC_CHECK_PROG(LEX,lex,lex)
test -z "$LEX" && AC_MSG_ERROR(['lex' or 'flex' is required to compile GHC.])
fi
])
dnl
dnl Check to see whether CC (gcc) supports a particular option.
......
......@@ -656,10 +656,9 @@ FPTOOLS_PROG_DIFF
dnl ** Find find command (for Win32's benefit)
FPTOOLS_FIND_FIND
dnl ** Find lex command (lex or flex) - *doesn't* use autoconf's
dnl AC_PROG_LEX, since it doesn't actually check whether 'lex'
dnl exists if 'flex' doesn't.
AC_PROG_LEX_STRICT
dnl ** Find lex command (flex or lex)
AC_PROG_LEX
test -z "$LEX" && AC_MSG_WARN(['flex' or 'lex' not found])
dnl ** figure out how to do a BSD-ish install
AC_PROG_INSTALL
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment