[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       autoconf
Subject:    Re: [autoconf] AmigaOS fork()
From:       Paul Eggert <eggert () twinsun ! com>
Date:       2001-06-27 16:46:34
Message-ID: 200106271646.f5RGkYE05924 () shade ! twinsun ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

> From: Akim Demaille <akim@epita.fr>
> Date: 23 Jun 2001 17:51:54 +0200
> 
> Paul, this patch was sent later, and you did not comment it.

Sorry, I didn't see it.  I don't think that patch is necessary.
Here are some more detailed comments:

> +  AC_DEFINE(ac_vfork, vfork, [Define to `vfork' if it works, otherwise to `fork'])
...
> +  AC_DEFINE(ac_vfork, fork, [Define to `vfork' if it works, otherwise to `fork'])

As a rule, I don't think autoconf should be in the business of
defining new C functionality, as that intrudes on the programmer's
responsibility and namespace.  I think autoconf should define only C
symbols that tell you what works and what doesn't, and perhaps symbols
that replace non-working symbols.  Autoconf's job is hard enough as it
is; I'd rather not complicate everybody's lives by extending its scope.

> -      # Override, as these systems have only a dummy fork() stub
> +      # Override, as these systems only have a dummy fork() stub

This is merely a matter of English, but the old version seems more
correct to me, as "only" applies to "dummy", not to "have".


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]