This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: libiberty configure mysteries
Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
| On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:52:01PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:
| >
| > | On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 05:02:36PM +0200, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | >
| > | > Hi,
| > | >
| > | > The following is from libibtery.h
| > | >
| > | > /* HAVE_DECL_* is a three-state macro: undefined, 0 or 1. If it is
| > | > undefined, we haven't run the autoconf check so provide the
| > | > declaration without arguments. If it is 0, we checked and failed
| > | > to find the declaration so provide a fully prototyped one. If it
| > | > is 1, we found it so don't provide any declaration at all. */
| > | >
| > | > However, that appears to be incorrect because what configure output in
| > | > config.h is not HAVE_DECL_XXX, but HAVE_XXX. Therefore, it appears
| > | > that libiberty would be misdetecting declarations -- it thinks
| > | > something is missing, whereas in fact it is not.
| > | >
| > | > Am I missing something here?
| > |
| > | Try adding an AC_CHECK_DECLS call for basename. That will define
| > | HAVE_DECL_BASENAME.
| >
| > Thanks. I tried it, but I did not have much success -- configure is
| > outputting HAVE_BASENAME instead of HAVE_DECL_BASENAME.
|
| You should have both; did you rerun autoheader? AC_CHECK_FUNCS will
| genereate HAVE_BASENAME.
You're absolutely right. I reran autoheader and things
HAVE_DECL_BASENAME got handled properly.
(I ran into other problems but they are unrelated to the one I
raised.)
Thanks!
-- Gaby