On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Hrvoje Niksic wrote:
> Believe it or not, I wasn't aware of that. Furthermore, I'm pretty certain
> that older versions of Autoconf handled HPUX just fine. The level of
> overengineering that went into Autoconf in the last several years is
> appalling. :-(
I agree with this, and I too am convinced that this used to work fine in the
past and just suddenly stopped working at some point.
> Would it make sense to simply always use this check?
In my mind, this is what the function-exists test should do, but I thought
that I'd leave the existing test do what it thinks is right first since there
might be cases and systems around that works in ways I haven't considered. For
example, this extra test might fail if the function name is defined as a
macro.
--
-=- Daniel Stenberg -=- http://daniel.haxx.se -=-
ech`echo xiun|tr nu oc|sed 'sx\([sx]\)\([xoi]\)xo un\2\1 is xg'`ol
