On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:18:33PM -0800, Ben Pfaff wrote: > Marc Singer <elf@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > The trouble is that I want to be able to cross compile a large > > number of packages without going through the effort to patch > > and add this function. > > If programs fail because of this, it's because they're not using > AC_FUNC_MALLOC properly: they are not making a replacement for > malloc() available as the Autoconf documentation says they must. > You should report bugs against these programs. Perhaps, but this has the unwanted side effect of introducing a different and uncessary code path when cross-compiling. Even though autoconf recommends that a replacement be available, it would also be proper to detect that the target uses an approved GNU C library and not require the replacement malloc. There has been some talk about using cross-compilation to increase the throughput and flexibility of the build systems. This macro will cause native and cross-compiled binaries to be different which will make it harder to prove that the programs are identical. If the programs are not obviously the same, there will be good reason to doubt that cross-compilation is reliable. > -- > Ben Pfaff > email: blp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > web: http://benpfaff.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > Autoconf mailing list > Autoconf@xxxxxxx > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
