Autoconf maintainers,
Just started to learn autoconf, it's a great package. I'm starting to port
some of our custom backend systems to use it, primarily to ease Makefile
maintenance, since we're also using Automake to keep things simple. We've
been using the Sun standard compilers, but when I tried to compile under
GCC, I ran into a difference that Autoconf doesn't have a test for:
void
foo()
{
/* This declaration is implicit in the new C9X spec,
Just started to learn autoconf, it's a great package. I'm starting to port
some of our custom backend systems to use it, primarily to ease Makefile
maintenance, since we're also using Automake to keep things simple. We've
been using the Sun standard compilers, but when I tried to compile under
GCC, I ran into a difference that Autoconf doesn't have a test for:
void
foo()
{
/* This declaration is implicit in the new C9X spec,
** but Sun cc doesn't
support it
*/
static const char __func__[] = "foo";
...
}
I use this variable frequently in debugging and log files to track which
function an error occurs in. The problem is that the latest GCC already
supports the implicit declaration of this variable. I've already written my
own test for this, but it'd be nice if Autoconf had a macro, AC_C_FUNC or
the like, that tested whether a compiler was __func__ aware, and defined an
appropriate macro in config.h.
Just a suggestion. Thanks again to all the authors/maintainers for this
great tool.
Christopher Currie
static const char __func__[] = "foo";
...
}
I use this variable frequently in debugging and log files to track which
function an error occurs in. The problem is that the latest GCC already
supports the implicit declaration of this variable. I've already written my
own test for this, but it'd be nice if Autoconf had a macro, AC_C_FUNC or
the like, that tested whether a compiler was __func__ aware, and defined an
appropriate macro in config.h.
Just a suggestion. Thanks again to all the authors/maintainers for this
great tool.
Christopher Currie