I'll separe this one in a dedicated patch and give it a more detailed/specific explanation.
On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:02 PM Zack Weinberg <z...@owlfolio.org> wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 1:30 AM, Frederic Berat wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:19 PM Zack Weinberg <z...@owlfolio.org> wrote: > >> > --- a/t/ax/depcomp.sh > >> > +++ b/t/ax/depcomp.sh > >> > @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ cat > sub/subfoo.h <<'END' > >> > #include <stdio.h> > >> > extern int subfoo (void); > >> > END > >> > +cp sub/subfoo.h sub/subfoo.save > >> > > >> > cat > src/baz.c <<'END' > >> > #include "baz.h" > >> > @@ -399,8 +400,7 @@ do_test () > >> > && rewrite "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h echo 'choke me' \ > >> > && not $MAKE \ > >> > && delete "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h \ > >> > - && edit "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.c -e 1d \ > >> > - && edit "$srcdir"/foo.h -e 2d \ > >> > + && mv "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.save "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h \ > >> > && make_ok \ > >> > || r='not ok' > >> > result_ "$r" "$pfx dependency tracking works" > >> > >> These changes don't seem to have anything to do with the patch as > >> described. They should be submitted separately. > > > > Actually, that is related. The edit removes the "#include subfoo.h" > > line from foo.h, because the subfoo.h file got overwritten earlier. > > This subfoo.h is the one that had the function declaration in ("extern > > int subfoo (void);" specifically). > > Either you need the original header back, or you need to get the > > declaration back another way. I felt this way was easier than trying > > to insert a declaration without breaking the test. > > OK, I clearly don't understand what this test is doing, so I'm going to > defer to someone else to review it. > > zw > > >