From 8cd5eae91d5409a62e6a565e00e0d1846c35d606 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Neil Jerram Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 21:00:05 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] configure.in: additional note suggested by Greg Troxel --- configure.in | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.in b/configure.in index 13d590f12..48facc835 100644 --- a/configure.in +++ b/configure.in @@ -720,8 +720,11 @@ AC_SEARCH_LIBS(crypt, crypt, [AC_DEFINE(HAVE_CRYPT,1, [Define to 1 if you have the `crypt' function.])]) -# When compiling with GCC on some OSs (Solaris, AIX), _Complex_I doesn't work; -# in the reported cases so far, 1.0fi works well instead. +# When compiling with GCC on some OSs (Solaris, AIX), _Complex_I doesn't +# work; in the reported cases so far, 1.0fi works well instead. According +# to the C99 spec, the complex.h header must provide a working definition +# of _Complex_I, so we always try _Complex_I first. The 1.0fi fallback +# is a workaround for the failure of some systems to conform to C99. if test "$ac_cv_type_complex_double" = yes; then AC_MSG_CHECKING([for i]) AC_TRY_COMPILE([