The last I'll say on this... > Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 12:31:52 -0800 > From: Paul Eggert <egg...@cs.ucla.edu> > To: Aharon Robbins <arn...@skeeve.com> > CC: ebl...@redhat.com, bug-grep@gnu.org > Subject: Re: dfa.c order of include problem > > On 01/31/13 12:24, Aharon Robbins wrote: > >> Glibc <regex.h> does not have the problem, > > How is that so? The undef of RE_DUP_MAX and redefine is there. > > If limits.h is included after regex.h, then the value from limits.h > > is applied. > > But in Glibc the two definitions are equivalent (identical preprocessor > token lists), so it's valid C and there's no problem.
You've missed the point. Using the glibc regex.h on a non-GLIBC system where limits.h is included after regex.h does not solve anything. That is the issue I am working around with the change I suggested to dfa.c. Thanks, Arnold
