[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?
From: |
Allan Clark (reply to list only) |
Subject: |
Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ? |
Date: |
Sun, 29 Sep 2002 15:05:35 -0400 |
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])
... 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)
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? 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.
Allan
Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> > From: Allan
> > Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 21:01:05 -0400
> >
> > What I'm asking is: how's the best way to go about this? Stop the
> > copying of AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC(C) to AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC(C++), and generate
> > C++ -usable code with versatility in the function-call?
>
> Yes. I think we need to rethink AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC entirely for C++.
> The user needs to supply a sample call, not just the function name.
- Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Reply To List Only, 2002/09/28
- Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Paul Eggert, 2002/09/29
- Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?,
Allan Clark (reply to list only) <=
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Steve M. Robbins, 2002/09/29
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (Reply To List Only), 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Sebastian Huber, 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (Reply to List Only), 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Sebastian Huber, 2002/09/30
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Sebastian Huber, 2002/09/29
- Re: Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?, Allan Clark (Reply To List Only), 2002/09/30