Thanks for your prompt reply!
| No. This would be wrong. Then I'd better #define fork to be vfork. But vfork
| is not necessarily a replacement for fork. But for the tests at hand, it is.
|
| Another idea would be to add
|
| #if HAVE_WORKING_FORK
| #define forkvfork fork
| #else
| #if HAVE_WORKING_VFORK
| #define forkvfork vfork
| #else
| #error Neither fork nor vfork available.
| #endif
| #endif
|
| to confdefs.h and replace fork by forkvfork where appropriate. forkvfork in
| the sense of prefer fork, but replace by vfork. Comments about that?
Hm, I probably had not very well understood what was going on. I
don't know enough about vfork and fork to speak intelligently here,
but I seem to understand that using AC_REPLACE_FUNCS would be better
suited then, no? I mean, from the user point of view, not for the
tests themselves.
For the tests themselves, I don't know what to do. I'd need some
knowledgeable experienced input from others :). (FYI, Autoconf
considers #error as not usable. We might be wrong, we don't know, but
that's an assumption to respect. Hm, I'll embed a test in the test
suite. BTW, there is a test for negated char classes in the test
suite, and up to now it never fails: [!a-z] seems portable!).
| 2001-05-31 Rüdiger Kuhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
|
| * acfunctions.m4: (AC_FUNC_FORK) New, check whether fork() isn't just
| a stub and define HAVE_WORKING_FUNC if it works.
| (AC_FUNC_GETPGRP, AC_FUNC_WAIT3) Use AC_FUNC_FORK and #define fork
| to vfork if necessary.
| (AC_FUN_VFORK) Similarly define HAVE_WORKING_VFORK.
s/FUN/FUNC/.
| * acspecific.m4: (AC_SYS_RESTARTABLE_SYSCALLS) dito.
Isn't it ditto?
| # AC_FUNC_VFORK
| # -------------
| AC_DEFUN([AC_FUNC_VFORK],
| @@ -1547,6 +1587,8 @@
| ac_cv_func_vfork_works=$ac_cv_func_vfork])])
| if test "x$ac_cv_func_vfork_works" = xno; then
| AC_DEFINE(vfork, fork, [Define as `fork' if `vfork' does not work.])
| +else
| + AC_DEFINE(HAVE_WORKING_VFORK, 1, [Define if `vfork' works.])
| fi
| ])# AC_FUNC_VFORK
Independent comment: personally, I don't like this `feature' of
Autoconf. Maybe in the future we should move this #define vfork fork
under the responsability of the user, say in system.h.
BTW, note that it means that here, this define is copied in
confdefs.h.
Hm... Do we really want _two_ macros here? Again, I might be too
novice to fully understand the fork picture, but wouldn't it make more
sense to have a single macro checking for both and making the right
choice? This would also address the issue you mentioned above.
| +@defmac AC_FUNC_FORK
| +@maindex FUNC_FORK
| +@cvindex HAVE_WORKING_FORK
| +If a working @code{fork} is not found, define @code{HAVE_WORKING_FORK}. This
| +macro only checks whether @code{fork} ist just a stub.
Are you German? :) s/ist/is/.
Thanks a lot for your patience!
