On Jul 27, 2000, Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 27 Jul 2000 21:50:47 -0300
>> the proposed changes don't make autoconf unusable for pre-C99.
> Not unusable, but it will certainly break some code.
> autoconf's behavior wouldn't change for existing autoconf input files.
Then I must definitely have misunderstood your suggestion. I thought
we were going to perform the new test with the default include list
if no include list was supplied. Now it seems to me we're going to
deprecate AC_CHECK_FUNC, and suggest the use of AC_CHECK_FUNCTION,
with this new test that tries to compile:
${INCLUDES-$DEFAULT_INCLUDES} (sorry for the language abuse)
int main () {
#if funcname is not a built-in or whatever weird test we used to do here
return ! funcname;
#endif
}
Is that correct?
My only concern is that we won't be verifying whether funcname is
actually a function name. Of course, we didn't check that before, and
I can't see any way to do it, but since we're taking the troubles of
deprecating such a widely used macro as AC_CHECK_FUNC, we might as
well just bite the bullet and use some broader-meaning name that
actually reflects what we do, such as AC_CHECK_SYMBOL. Or maybe just
recommend the use of AC_CHECK_DECL instead?
> _port_ to pre-POSIX platforms, it is no longer important to _optimize_
> for them
Good point.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist *Please* write to mailing lists, not to me
