On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Mike Frysinger wrote on Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:16PM CET: > > On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * Mike Frysinger wrote on Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:38:05AM CET: > > > > the argz.m4 header checks to see if error_t is defined, but only does > > > > so by including the argz.h header. if you try to build on a system > > > > that does provide error_t, but not argz.h, the argz replacement > > > > module fails to build. on glibc systems, error_t is defined in > > > > errno.h. perhaps the gl_FUNC_ARGZ should be checking to see if > > > > errno.h exists and if so, including it. > > > > > > I don't quite understand. If gl_FUNC_ARGZ finds that error_t is not > > > defined, it defines __error_t_defined in addition to error_t. > > > > this must be a semi-recent addition then ... the package i'm looking at > > does not do that ... here is the snippet from naim: > > # AC_LTDL_FUNC_ARGZ > > The current gnulib module is newer, please try that. The macro has also > been renamed to gl_FUNC_ARGZ for gnulib consistency.
i dont maintain naim, i was just trying to build it. i imagine when upstream gets around to updating, they'll do this. > > > This should keep your errno.h header from defining error_t. > > > > shouldnt errno.h also be checked for the error_t type since that is where > > it actually gets defined ? > > Do you know of a system that has error_t that doesn't use > __error_t_defined? nope. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list Bug-libtool@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool
