Bug#1040472: p11-kit FTCBFS: AC_RUN_IFELSE

[Andreas Metzler]

Control: tags -1 fixed-upstream

On 2023-07-09 Helmut Grohne <helmut at subdivi.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 09, 2023 at 04:04:20PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
[...]
> > Also wouldn't using AC_FUNC_STRERROR_R be a better fix? (I do not expect
> > you to provide this, I asking for your opinion)

> After having read the documentation of that macro, I am unsure whether
> it resolves what is being checked here. AC_FUNC_STRERROR_R checks for
> the function and also for how it is being declared, but makes no
> statement about its return value. If there is a connection between
> return type and return value that I don't see, then yes, this may be
> better. Otherwise, this probably still is better than using
> AC_CHECK_FUNC outside. Maybe that connection is XSI <=> int return, GNU
> <=> pointer return?

Hello,

Yes, afaiu the two different strerrors can be distinguished by their return
type (according to strerror_r(3)) and that is exactly what
AC_FUNC_STRERROR_R provides without needing AC_RUN_IFELSE. The
AC_RUN_IFELSE check also tests whether strerror_r() returns 0 (XSI) or a
pointer (i.e. <>0).

Nevermind ... this has been fixed upstream. (With AC_COMPILE_IFELSE).
https://github.com/p11-glue/p11-kit/commit/3ba2c55dfdc8ff20de369f07f6c57d08718d3add

cu Andreas
-- 
`What a good friend you are to him, Dr. Maturin. His other friends are
so grateful to you.'
`I sew his ears on from time to time, sure'