Re: 2.49e problems with gcc

[Tim Van Holder]

On 12 May 2001 15:47:10 +0200, Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> On a second thought, the right way to handle this depends upon the
> nature of $1: is it always a literal, or can it be a shell variable?
> If it's always a literal, then your first approach but using
> translit([HAVE_DECL_$1], [a-z], [A-Z]) instead of the tr thingy is the
> right thing to do.  If sometimes it's a shell variable then their code
> is wrong as it won't prototype some #undef HAVE_DECL_.  They might fix
> this shortcoming using acconfig.h, dunno.
> 

These are the only calls

gcc_AC_CHECK_DECLS(bcopy \
        getenv atol sbrk abort atof getcwd getwd \
        strsignal putc_unlocked fputs_unlocked strstr environ \
        malloc realloc calloc free basename getopt, , ,[
#include "gansidecl.h"
#include "system.h"])

gcc_AC_CHECK_DECLS(getrlimit setrlimit getrusage, , ,[
#include "gansidecl.h"
#include "system.h"
#ifdef HAVE_SYS_RESOURCE_H
#include <sys/resource.h>
#endif
])

So I think your solution will do just fine.