On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 14:15:47 +0200, Svante Signell wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:51 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote:
>
> > If you assume getcwd is available, this check is pointless; if you
> > don't, then you need to skip the check below is getcwd has not been
> > found.
>
> New version: (has to be indented?)
I srtarted commenting inline, but just posting the proposed changes as
a whole seems easier (beware completely untested):
AC_CHECK_FUNCS([getcwd], [
AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether getcwd(NULL, 0) is supported])
AC_RUN_IFELSE([
AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[
#include <unistd.h>
]], [[
char *result = getcwd(NULL, 0);
if (result == NULL)
return 1;
]])
], [
AC_DEFINE([HAVE_GNU_GETCWD], [1],
[Define to 1 if you have support for 'getcwd(NULL, 0)' GNU
extension])
AC_MSG_RESULT([yes])
], [
AC_MSG_RESULT([no])
], [
AC_MSG_NOTICE([cannot run test program while cross compiling])
])
])
thanks,
guillem
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hurd-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121017141510.ga14...@gaara.hadrons.org
