Обсуждение: [PATCH] Better way to check for getaddrinfo function.

 
Just thought that the following patch might improve checking for getaddrinfo function (in configure.in)
I was forced to write 'coz getaddrinfo went unnoticed in Tru64 Unix.

(displaying attached patch)

$ diff -r configure.in configure.in.1
920c920,944
<   AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([getaddrinfo])
---
>  AC_CACHE_CHECK([for getaddrinfo], ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo,
> [AC_TRY_LINK([#include <netdb.h>],
>                 [struct addrinfo *g,h;g=&h;getaddrinfo("","",g,&g);],
>   AC_TRY_RUN([
> #include <assert.h>
> #include <netdb.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #ifndef AF_INET
> # include <sys/socket.h>
> #endif
> #ifdef __cplusplus
> extern "C"
> #endif
> char (*f) ();
> int main(void) {
>
>    f = getaddrinfo;
>
>    return 0;
> }
>   ],ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo=yes, ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo=no),
> ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo=no)])
> if test "$ac_cv_func_getaddrinfo" = yes; then
>   AC_DEFINE(HAVE_GETADDRINFO,1,[Define if you have the getaddrinfo function])
> fi

Rajesh R
--
This space intentionally left non-blank.
<<configure-in.patch>>

"R, Rajesh (STSD)" <rajesh.r2@hp.com> writes:
> Just thought that the following patch might improve checking for
> getaddrinfo function (in configure.in)

Since AC_TRY_RUN tests cannot work in cross-compilation scenarios,
you need an *extremely* good reason to put one in.  "I thought this
might improve things" doesn't qualify.  Exactly what problem are you
trying to solve and why is a run-time test necessary?  Why doesn't
the existing coding work for you?

            regards, tom lane