getline: protect prototype better
How about this? If for some reason HAVE_DECL_GETLINE is not defined at all, the header file fail to parse. This uses the idiom that is suggested by the autoconf manual. 2005-08-23 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * getline.h (getline): Protect prototype better. --- getline.h 17 Jul 2005 11:39:14 +0200 1.16 +++ getline.h 23 Aug 2005 13:28:13 +0200 @@ -23,6 +23,6 @@ # include stdio.h # include sys/types.h -#if !HAVE_DECL_GETLINE +#if defined(HAVE_DECL_GETLINE) !HAVE_DECL_GETLINE ssize_t getline (char **lineptr, size_t *n, FILE *stream); #endif /* !HAVE_GETLINE */ ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
Re: getline: protect prototype better
Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: How about this? If for some reason HAVE_DECL_GETLINE is not defined at all, the header file fail to parse. This uses the idiom that is suggested by the autoconf manual. 2005-08-23 Simon Josefsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] * getline.h (getline): Protect prototype better. --- getline.h 17 Jul 2005 11:39:14 +0200 1.16 +++ getline.h 23 Aug 2005 13:28:13 +0200 @@ -23,6 +23,6 @@ # include stdio.h # include sys/types.h -#if !HAVE_DECL_GETLINE +#if defined(HAVE_DECL_GETLINE) !HAVE_DECL_GETLINE A symbol that is not defined expands in the preprocessor to 0, so the former should parse properly. If it does not, then the latter will not parse properly either. The latter can be preferred because of its different meaning, not because it should parse properly when the former does not. Furthermore, in gnulib we know that the test will be performed, so I don't see a reason to prefer the latter. -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://benpfaff.org ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
Re: [bug-gnulib] getline: protect prototype better
Simon Josefsson wrote: How about this? If for some reason HAVE_DECL_GETLINE is not defined at all, the header file fail to parse. What's the point in trying to use lib/getline.c without m4/getline.m4 ? We engage ourselves to maintain both in sync, since they are part of a single gnulib module. Anyone using only the .c file but not the .m4 will have endless maintenance problems anyway. Bruno ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
Re: getline: protect prototype better
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: This was also discovered while porting GNU SASL to uClinux. Perhaps I should investigate how difficult it would be to make uClinux run ./configure properly instead of maintaining the HAVE_* symbols manually. Definitely. uClinux has a shell and a compilation environment (and you can also cross-compile to it). That's exactly what autoconf was designed for. Right, although now I was incorporating GNU SASL into the uClinux build framework. All autoconf based programs that have been ported to uClinux appear to use hand-written Makefile's. The reason I went through the hassle of incorporating GNU SASL into the uClinux framework was to get the tools included in the uClinux generated ROMFS root file system automatically. But it is likely much simpler to cross-compile it first (which, incidentally, I've already done), and manually move the tools on to the root file system. I'll likely do that, thanks for the heads-up. Regards, Simon ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
Re: getline: protect prototype better
Simon Josefsson wrote: This was also discovered while porting GNU SASL to uClinux. Perhaps I should investigate how difficult it would be to make uClinux run ./configure properly instead of maintaining the HAVE_* symbols manually. Definitely. uClinux has a shell and a compilation environment (and you can also cross-compile to it). That's exactly what autoconf was designed for. Bruno ___ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
