Objections? Re: Checking for CXX libraries -- AC_CXX_CHECK_LIB ?

[Allan Clark (reply to list only)]

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.