Sebastian;
> If you don't include the header file with the namespace and function
> declaration you will get a syntax error.
>
I thought that the header would be handled by a previous
AC_CHECK_HEADER()
Is there a reason not to do it there, or are you pressing the
convenience of doing it in the same AC_xx call? Would you not want to
use this header when checking for other headers?
Allan
Sebastian Huber wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> On Sunday 29 September 2002 12:05, you wrote:
> > I'm looking here for objections from the AutoConf list.
> >
> >
> > I could probably have a version tonight or tomorrow that ignores the
> > copied LANG(C)->LANG(C+) stuff and looks something like this:
> >
> > AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(library, function, params, [action-if-found],
> > [action-if-not-found], [other-libraries])
>
> I've done it this way:
>
> LIBS="$LIBS $TACO_LIBS -lTACOExtensions"
> AC_MSG_CHECKING([for TACO extensions library])
> AC_TRY_LINK([#include <TACOException.h>],[TACO::errorString(
>0)],taco_try=ok,taco_try=failed,)
> AC_MSG_RESULT($taco_try)
> if test $taco_try = "failed" ; then
> AC_MSG_ERROR([it seems that the TACO extension library is not installed])
> fi
>
> > ... really adding "params" in there before the optionals. I could get
> > this together, test it myself, and have Sebastian Huber, jlm, and Ossama
> > Othman (recent requestors) test it out to see if it works for them.
> > Forgive me if I commit syntactical errors; I'm chronically looking
> > things up.
> >
> > The function above would generate a call something like:
> >
> > AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB(<lib>, pipes::pipeCheck, [(char *) "test", (int) 42])
> >
> > ... generating:
> >
> > (void) pipes::pipeCheck ((char *) "test", (int) 42)
>
> If you don't include the header file with the namespace and function
> declaration you will get a syntax error.
>
> > it would have to match against something like (ignoring return type):
> >
> > namespace pipes {
> >
> > int pipeCheck (char *var1, int var2);
> >
> > };
> >
> > ...but then do we need to check for objects, too?
>
> Yes, I needed it too, and it works with:
> AC_TRY_LINK([#include <TACOClient.h>],[TACO::Client()],taco_try=ok,taco_try=failed,)
>
> > I would consider that
> > on a second-effort (you know, the infamous second-effort: all-singing,
> > all-dancing, bloated excessive creeping feature of code... eek!).
> >
> > We could work this into a generic sense once it's functional.
> [...]
