Eric Blake <ebb9@xxxxxxx> writes: > According to Russ Allbery on 3/22/2009 1:18 PM: >> Could AC_FUNC_FSEEKO acquire ACTION_IF_FOUND and ACTION_IF_NOT_FOUND >> arguments so that I can implement this conditional probing and >> AC_LIBOBJ calls in a sane fashion without relying on undocumented and >> unsupported macro internals? > Why not ditch AC_FUNC_FSEEKO, and write a portable variant yourself? > AC_DEFUN([INN_FSEEKO], > [AC_REQUIRE([AC_SYS_LARGEFILE])dnl > AC_CACHE_CHECK([for fseeko], [inn_cv_func_fseeko], > AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[ > #include <sys/types.h> /* for off_t */ > #include <stdio.h> > ]], [[int (*fp) (FILE *, off_t, int) = fseeko; > return fseeko (stdin, 0, 0) && fp (stdin, 0, 0);]])] > [inn_cv_func_fseeko=yes], [inn_cv_func_fseeko=no])]) > if test x"$inn_cv_func_fseeko" != xyes ; then > INN_TYPE_FPOS_T_LARGE > AC_CHECK_DECLS([fseeko, ftello]) > AC_LIBOBJ([fseeko]) > AC_LIBOBJ([ftello]) > fi > ]) Hm, yeah, I could do that. It seems like a bit of a waste to check for fseeko twice given that Autoconf is already doing so and I'd still need to call the Autoconf AC_FUNC_FSEEKO function to get the prototype handling right, though. > That said, if others agree with you that exporting ac_cv_func_fseeko for > compatibility is still worthwhile (it was dropped in commit 90fcd46 > autoconf 2.60a-37), then we could probably modify AC_FUNC_FSEEKO to once > again set that variable to yes or no for 2.64 and beyond. Wouldn't it be better to add two arguments to the function? It's backwards-compatible and I think it's a lot cleaner than documenting a cache variable. -- Russ Allbery (rra@xxxxxxxxxxxx) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
