From ef2670d2fd07cccb23c948c3b96af692e067f8ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jim Meyering Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2002 17:55:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] (jm_FUNC_REALLOC): Change the `checking ...' message to be more precise. Rather than saying we're checking whether the function `works', say what we're testing. --- m4/realloc.m4 | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/m4/realloc.m4 b/m4/realloc.m4 index c8a823747..7695e89c8 100644 --- a/m4/realloc.m4 +++ b/m4/realloc.m4 @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -#serial 5 +#serial 6 dnl From Jim Meyering. dnl Determine whether realloc works when both arguments are 0. @@ -12,7 +12,8 @@ AC_DEFUN([jm_FUNC_REALLOC], AC_DEFINE(HAVE_DONE_WORKING_REALLOC_CHECK, 1, [Define if the realloc check has been performed. ]) - AC_CACHE_CHECK([for working realloc], jm_cv_func_working_realloc, + AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether realloc(0,0) returns a non-NULL pointer], + jm_cv_func_working_realloc, [AC_TRY_RUN([ char *realloc (); int @@ -23,7 +24,7 @@ AC_DEFUN([jm_FUNC_REALLOC], ], jm_cv_func_working_realloc=yes, jm_cv_func_working_realloc=no, - dnl When crosscompiling, assume realloc is broken. + dnl When crosscompiling, assume realloc(0,0) returns NULL. jm_cv_func_working_realloc=no) ]) if test $jm_cv_func_working_realloc = no; then -- 2.11.0