On Fri, Jun 23, 2000 at 02:48:03PM +0200, Danny Backx wrote:
> > The LTXpm.c source however is more or less a modified version
> > from xpm sources, so it might be easier to maintain if we don't
> > edit more than necessary?
>
> I agree completely with your point. I'd just like to point out that LTXpm.c is a
>concatenation
> of a bunch of source files, with lots of edits to make the concatenation work.
>
> It turns out that XPM's implementation is, to put it mildly, not very clean.
>Functions
> with the same name in different source files etc.
>
> Danny
The current check AM_FUNC_SPRINTF_VOID is a bit nonsense anyway.
However thinking about it I do not even understand the CLOSEDIR equivalent.
In case the compiler builds this thing what's the chance to detect a
void return value? As I see it you can get virtually every return value,
so any check for a specific one has good chances to fail but not for sure?
--
Alexander Mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
