Re: Fix some tests to be g++ >= 2.95 safe

[Franz Sirl]

At 09:18 03.03.00, Akim Demaille wrote:
>That's fine with me, but I still would like to know why you didn't
>prefer using the right includes.

Hmm, I think I stated that I simply don't know enough of autoconf to do it 
right, so I preferred to do a minimum patch that exactly shows which 
functions need declarations. I only was brave enough to include unistd.h, 
because it was used the same way further up in the same check.

If you tell me how to do it right and platform-independent, I will happily 
come up with another patch.

Franz.