On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:15 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 14:15:47 +0200, Svante Signell wrote: > > On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:51 +0200, Pino Toscano wrote: > > > > > If you assume getcwd is available, this check is pointless; if you > > > don't, then you need to skip the check below is getcwd has not been > > > found. > > > > New version: (has to be indented?) > > I srtarted commenting inline, but just posting the proposed changes as > a whole seems easier (beware completely untested): > > AC_CHECK_FUNCS([getcwd], [ > AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether getcwd(NULL, 0) is supported]) > AC_RUN_IFELSE([ > AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[ > #include <unistd.h> > ]], [[ > char *result = getcwd(NULL, 0); > > if (result == NULL) > return 1; > ]]) > ], [ > AC_DEFINE([HAVE_GNU_GETCWD], [1], > [Define to 1 if you have support for 'getcwd(NULL, 0)' GNU > extension]) > AC_MSG_RESULT([yes]) > ], [ > AC_MSG_RESULT([no]) > ], [ > AC_MSG_NOTICE([cannot run test program while cross compiling]) > ]) > ]) I knew it could be integrated with AC_CHECK_FUNCS but chose not to do that due to the messy number of brackets. But your solution is nice, avoiding the ac_cv_func_getcwd test, etc. Thanks! Tested with and w/o getcwd, getcwd(NULL, 0) and cross options (hopefully).
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
