Re: [xml] Autotools stuff in libxml2

["William M. Brack" <wbrack mmm com hk>]

Aleksey Sanin said:
> Mike,
>
> I understand that you would like to bring LibXML2 to the latest and
> greatest autotools
> but what are the minimum autotools versions that support all these
> changes?
> I think that it would be very sad if as a result of this LibXML2
> would
> not compile on older
> systems. I would suggest to carefully evaluate the tradeoffs before
> doing this change.
>
>
> Aleksey
>
> > It would be nice to somewhat update autotools stuff by doing the
> > following :
> >
> >
> > ....

I am also a strong supporter of going with the latest and greatest,
but Aleksey's point is a good one.  Of course, there must be some
limits to how long the library must cater for older versions of the
auto* routines.  At the moment, I believe we are trying to at least
maintain compatibility with autoconf-2.13 and automake-1.4.

Mike, could you save me a little time and let me know which of your
requested changes would maintain compatibility within that
constraint?

Also, with regard to your "P.S.", I don't get any such warnings on
my system (x86 gentoo, gcc-3.2.3), but I seem to remember seeing
some on either the Alpha or the HP, because of the way some
validation macros check for unicode even though the argument is an
unsigned char.  Which library version are you referring to, which
compiler, and which architecture?  Also, what compiler flags are you
using (when testing I'm using -g -O -pedantic -W -Wunused -Wimplicit
-Wreturn-type -Wswitch -Wcomment -Wtrigraphs -Wformat
-Wchar-subscripts -Wuninitialized -Wparentheses -Wshadow
-Wpointer-arith -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Waggregate-return
-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wnested-externs -Winline
-Wredundant-decls)?

Regards,

Bill