New defines

[Jim Jagielski <ji...@jaguNET.com>]

I seem to recall awhile ago someone suggesting not using such #defines
as HAVE_WHATEVER, in case we move to some sort of autoconf process.

If desired, I'll edit the code to sed all the HAVE_ to USE_ if that's
OK.

Let me know.
-- 
Jim Jagielski  << jim@jaguNET.com >>   |      "That's a Smith & Wesson,
  **  jaguNET Access Services  **      |       and you've had your six" 
      Email: info@jaguNET.com          |             - James Bond
++    http://www.jaguNET.com/         +++      Voice/Fax: 410-931-3157       ++

Re: New defines

[Tom Tromey <tr...@creche.cygnus.com>]

Jim> I seem to recall awhile ago someone suggesting not using such
Jim> #defines as HAVE_WHATEVER, in case we move to some sort of
Jim> autoconf process.

The actual intent was to use the same macros that would be used by
autoconf, to make using autoconf easier for those of us who need it.

Jim> If desired, I'll edit the code to sed all the HAVE_ to USE_ if
Jim> that's OK.

For functions, use HAVE_FUNCTION.  Function name is capitalized, eg
HAVE_FNMATCH.

For headers, use HAVE_HEADER_H; header name is capitalized and all "/"
turned to "_".  Eg HAVE_SYS_STAT_H.

For optional features, I recommend something that is guaranteed not to
clash, like USE_FEATURE.

This is actually the easiest part of moving to autoconf.  It was more
work to rewrite conf.h appropriately.

Tom
-- 
tromey@cygnus.com                 Member, League for Programming Freedom

Re: New defines

[ra...@madhaus.utcs.utoronto.ca]

> I seem to recall awhile ago someone suggesting not using such #defines
> as HAVE_WHATEVER, in case we move to some sort of autoconf process.
> 
> If desired, I'll edit the code to sed all the HAVE_ to USE_ if that's
> OK.
> 
> Let me know.

That was me.

The reason being that if you create a module which uses autoconf then you
will get conflicts between the symbols. 

-Rasmus