(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.

diff --git a/m4/realloc.m4 b/m4/realloc.m4
index c8a8237..7695e89 100644 (file)
--- 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