[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: 2.49e problems with gcc
From: |
Tim Van Holder |
Subject: |
Re: 2.49e problems with gcc |
Date: |
16 May 2001 08:32:49 +0200 |
On 12 May 2001 15:47:10 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> On a second thought, the right way to handle this depends upon the
> nature of $1: is it always a literal, or can it be a shell variable?
> If it's always a literal, then your first approach but using
> translit([HAVE_DECL_$1], [a-z], [A-Z]) instead of the tr thingy is the
> right thing to do. If sometimes it's a shell variable then their code
> is wrong as it won't prototype some #undef HAVE_DECL_. They might fix
> this shortcoming using acconfig.h, dunno.
>
These are the only calls
gcc_AC_CHECK_DECLS(bcopy \
getenv atol sbrk abort atof getcwd getwd \
strsignal putc_unlocked fputs_unlocked strstr environ \
malloc realloc calloc free basename getopt, , ,[
#include "gansidecl.h"
#include "system.h"])
gcc_AC_CHECK_DECLS(getrlimit setrlimit getrusage, , ,[
#include "gansidecl.h"
#include "system.h"
#ifdef HAVE_SYS_RESOURCE_H
#include <sys/resource.h>
#endif
])
So I think your solution will do just fine.
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, (continued)
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/10
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/10
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/11
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/12
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/12
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc,
Tim Van Holder <=
- RE: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/17
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/19
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Thomas Dickey, 2001/05/19
- Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Tim Van Holder, 2001/05/16
Re: 2.49e problems with gcc, Akim Demaille, 2001/05/10