Daniel Stenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> 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.
I think the existing tests already fail if the function name is defined as a macro. At least that was my experience some time ago, FWIW.
