changeset 3794:0996cd489073

(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.
author Jim Meyering <jim@meyering.net>
date Tue, 09 Apr 2002 17:55:36 +0000
parents 0965164c76b2
children b964a1e729fc
files m4/realloc.m4
diffstat 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) [+]
line wrap: on
line diff
--- 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_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 @@
 	  ],
 	 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