Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, 10 Nov 2022, Zack Weinberg wrote: >> The biggest remaining (potential) problem, that I’m aware of, is that >> AC_CHECK_FUNC unconditionally declares the function we’re probing for >> as ‘char NAME (void)’ > > This does seem like the biggest problem since it would appear to > require that new macros are used and that the configure.ac developer > would need to supply additional syntax (where syntax does not > currently exist) in order to succeed with linking. It is not possible > for Autoconf itself to anticipate the function names used by libraries > and assume some specific prototype. For anything specified by either ISO C or POSIX/XSI, I think Autoconf probably *can* bake in an expected function prototype. It might be worth doing the same for common-but-not-standardized C library extensions (for concreteness, let’s say anything that exists in both glibc and at least two BSDs is a candidate for this treatment). We could go on doing what we do today for any unrecognized symbol, but issue a warning, recommending the script be updated to supply the expected prototype and headers. zw
