Marc Singer <elf@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. If the program doesn't make a replacement available but it decides that one is necessary (based on AC_FUNC_MALLOC), then it should cause configuration to fail because compilation cannot at that point succeed. This is the bug in those programs. > 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. Sure. How would you do that, though? I don't see any way, in general, to detect what C library the target will use. -- "In the PARTIES partition there is a small section called the BEER. Prior to turning control over to the PARTIES partition, the BIOS must measure the BEER area into PCR[5]." --TCPA PC Specific Implementation Specification _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
