Re: Patch installed for autoconf cleanup (part 1)

[Zack Weinberg <zack at wolery dot cumb dot org>]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2000 at 07:13:06PM +0200, Philipp Thomas wrote:
> Kaveh,
> 
> * Kaveh R. Ghazi (ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu) [20000424 19:54]:
> > 	A while back I submitted a patch to cleanup some autoconf
> > issues, got approval, but never installed it.  (Sorry, my bad.)
> 
> while we're on the subject of configury, I have two issues at hand, which
> would both be solved by the same action.
> 
> 1) configure checks if a declaration for environ (and possibly others) is
> needed but doesn't check if defining _GNU_SOURCE would yield one.
> 
> 2) When using the *_unlocked variants from glibc2, you get warnings about
> missing prototypes.

This came up some time ago and the consensus was that we never want to
define _GNU_SOURCE, because it causes the system headers to define
huge quantities of crap that we don't want.  Instead, we use
NEED_DECLARATION for the specific extensions we do want.

The _unlocked functions require hypercautious handling.  It may
be that they aren't prototyped because we don't need them at all
(e.g. Solaris).  I believe the existing logic correctly chooses
whether to use them _and_ correctly chooses whether to provide
prototypes for them.  Can you give a specific example where you got
missing-prototype warnings for _unlocked functions?

zw