Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see software that uses ANSI C function prototypes but tests for
> varargs.h vs. stdarg.h and chooses the right variadic argument syntax
> accordingly. Are there really ANSI C compilers that don't have stdarg.h?
No, but there were compilers that had f
From: Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Sep 2000 14:19:51 -0700
What would be *truly* valuable from my perspective would be some
indication of when given headers showed up. For example, INN is still
faithfully checking for the existence of unistd.h and only including it
[ On , September 22, 2000 at 14:19:51 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Call for help on improving the documentation
>
> Interesting; I wasn't aware those functions existed. (INN does its own
> bit fiddling.) Where are they available again? They're not in BS
Greg A Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ On , September 22, 2000 at 00:19:29 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: ]
>> I think you mean inet_ntop and inet_pton, the replacements for
>> inet_ntoa and inet_aton that can deal with IPv6 addresses? The only
>> operating system that I've seen that has tho
[ On , September 22, 2000 at 00:19:29 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Call for help on improving the documentation
>
> A lot of applications don't really care, though, provided gethostbyname
> works reasonably well. The other problem is that you don't want to
Greg A Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ On , September 21, 2000 at 18:37:09 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: ]
>> * SysV systems (e.g. Solaris) often don't have hstrerror.
> hstrerror is part of libresolv and any system which has a libresolv too
> old to have hstrerror will likely have many ma
[ On , September 21, 2000 at 18:37:09 (-0700), Russ Allbery wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: Call for help on improving the documentation
>
> * SysV systems (e.g. Solaris) often don't have hstrerror.
hstrerror is part of libresolv and any system which has a libresolv too
old to have
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's a pity that the Autoconf documentation gives hint about broken
> functions only for functions that have their own AC_FUNC_FOO, likewise
> for headers. If you know a function which should be AC_CHECK_FUNC'd or
> AC_REPLACE_FUNC'd, please, submit so
Hi People,
We are heading slowly towards the 2.50 release. There are still many
small details to fix in Autoconf, in particular the test suite which
Pavel is quickly improving. I think it is reasonable to aim at 2.49b,
a widely advertised beta, for the next couple of weeks.
Before 2.50, it wo
