Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| There are several macros in Autoconf that are checking whether a
| function exists and works and set HAVE_FUN accordingly. This is the
| strategy I adopted when I stole AC_FUNC_GETGROUPS from Jim, although
| his original macro was defining HAVE_WORKING_GETGROUPS.
|
| I think Autoconf should advocate a single approach.
|
| Not defining HAVE_GETGROUPS when it appears to be broken makes some
The point I raised is that HAVE_GETGROUPS should be set only by
the basic existence test for that function.
| sense, but also introduces problems if you expect to have a layer on
| the top of the existing but broken function.
|
| Defining HAVE_GETGROUPS and HAVE_WORKING_GETGROUPS seems fine, but
| FNAMTCH and ALLOCA (and probably a few others) have been propagating
| for years the idea that `HAVE_FOO' == `HAVE_WORKING_FOO', so it's a
| bit misleading.
|
| I'm fine with moving to HAVE_WORKING_FOO, but then, I would like to
| adjust the case of FNMATCH and ALLOCA etc. (which means, leaving
| HAVE_ALLOCA defined as usually, but having its description promote the
| use of HAVE_WORKING_ALLOCA).
That sounds fine.
| Also, is `HAVE_WORKING_FOO' the right naming scheme? Is it powerful
imho, yes :-)
I like your proposal (if I understood it) of also defining
HAVE_FOO_SOMEOTHER_BUG when appropriate.
| enough to allow us the specify the various brokenness that this or
| that function may have? Should HAVE_WORKING_FOO always be the `or' of
| HAVE_FOO_BLAHBLAH_BUG, HAVE_FOO_SOMEOTHER_BUG etc.? ISTR that some
| people would like the mmap test to be finer, so it'd be a good thing
| to have a naming scheme we could promote.
Remember that we can't please everyone :-)
