🚀 go-pugleaf

	I have two suggestions for autoconf.

	I was thinking that perhaps autoconf should not decide to define/undef
USG depending on whether or not it finds <strings.h>, bcopy() and index(), but
should instead use another symbol.
	I've found that USG is generally taken to mean SYSV (r3 or less).
But some SYSV's do include the BSD string functions so assuming that their
presence ==> ^USG may be inappropriate.  It makes more sense to relate BSD
string stuff to something like HAVE_BSTRING when these functions are available,
similar to what emacs does.  USG, if its defined by autoconf at all, would be
more useful if it related to something at the kernel level like interruptable
system calls.  (But because of its ambiguity, I'd rather it not be used at all.)

	A second suggestion regarding BSD string functions, is that autoconf,
in addition to its C file compile test, egrep for their presence in strings.h
similar to what you do for memchr() in SunOS.  I have a machine (Tek XD88
running UTekV) which has bcopy() and index() in libc, and it has <strings.h>,
but strings.h doesn't declare the functions.  So I end up getting gillions of
integer - pointer warnings.

		--Kaveh
-- 
Kaveh R. Ghazi			CAIP Center, Rutgers University.
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		rutgers!caip.rutgers.edu!ghazi