Vadim Zeitlin <vadim@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 1. What do the others do? Just ignore this problem (hoping that HAVE__XXX > is not really reserved) or is there something better? Yes, I think that's what pretty much everybody does right now. Have you run into a real problem, or is this just a theoretical one right now? > 3. Is it worth looking into patching autoconf to change AC_CHECK_FUNCS to > not generate reserved symbols for such functions or if such patch would > not be accepted anyhow (e.g. because of backwards compatibility)? I think it'd be a reasonable patch, but only for C++ of course, since C doesn't have the restriction. Or perhaps it should be an option for AC_CHECK_FUNCS, since it is a real change? Either way, I'd like someone with more C++ experience to chime in; I try to stay away from C++. _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
