Re: double underscores in autoconf-defined symbol names

[Paul Eggert]

Vadim Zeitlin <address@hidden> writes:

> 1. What do the others do? Just ignore this problem (hoping that HAVE__XXX
>    is not really reserved) or is there something better?

Yes, I think that's what pretty much everybody does right now.  Have you
run into a real problem, or is this just a theoretical one right now?

> 3. Is it worth looking into patching autoconf to change AC_CHECK_FUNCS to
>    not generate reserved symbols for such functions or if such patch would
>    not be accepted anyhow (e.g. because of backwards compatibility)?

I think it'd be a reasonable patch, but only for C++ of course, since
C doesn't have the restriction.  Or perhaps it should be an option for
AC_CHECK_FUNCS, since it is a real change?  Either way, I'd like
someone with more C++ experience to chime in; I try to stay away from
C++.