Follow-up Comment #8, bug #27809 (project make):
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Edward Welbourne e...@opera.com wrote:
[snip]
Finally, it seems that some of these changes are meant to
avoid variable names conflicting with function names (open,
etc.) Is this really a warning that some
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 13:10:28 +0200
Edward Welbourne e...@opera.com wrote:
You might read: http://make.mad-scientist.net/autodep.html
Thanks for the link. I have read that a while ago actually, but it was
nice finding it again. The point remains: There are better was than
what's in the info
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Edward Welbourne e...@opera.com wrote:
[snip]
Finally, it seems that some of these changes are meant to avoid variable
names conflicting with function names (open, etc.) Is this really a warning
that some compilers give?
Even gcc has a flag for it: -Wshadow; I
I'll think about it and check my ISO C 1989 standard (I can't remember
whether it supports %p) when I get back to work on Tuesday.
ANSI C '89 does specify the %p formatter (taking a void*).
Finally, it seems that some of these changes are meant to avoid variable
names conflicting with
You might read: http://make.mad-scientist.net/autodep.html
Paul: do you have any plans to integrate your pages into the manual ?
What's currently there falls some way short of best practice; I have a
more sweeping set of changes than Florian's, that I've put on hold
until I've got time to look
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #27809 (project make):
I've applied most of the second patch. The first patch is mostly in the w32
area so maybe Eli is a better person to review it?
I did have one question about the first patch: you have a change to make.h
which adds an include of malloc.h, but
From: Paul D. Smith invalid.nore...@gnu.org
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:32:15 +
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #27809 (project make):
I've applied most of the second patch. The first patch is mostly in the w32
area so maybe Eli is a better person to review it?
I will try to do that over
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #27809 (project make):
I've applied most of the second patch. The first patch is
Thanks.
I did have one question about the first patch: you have a
change to make.h which adds an include of malloc.h, but
later in make.h that header is already included if
a combined
all-in-one patch, w64-all-20100705.diff. This obsoletes all
the other patches attached here. In addition, it also covers the
tiny patch sugggested in bug #27825 too, so bug #27825 can be
closed.
(file #20902)
___
Additional Item
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #27825 (project make):
The suggested change is moved to a new patch in bug #27809. This
particular entry can be closed.
___
Reply to this item at:
http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?27825
Update of bug #27825 (project make):
Status:None = Duplicate
Open/Closed:Open = Closed
___
Follow-up Comment #3:
Closed as duplicate.
Follow-up Comment #12, bug #27809 (project make):
It is needed earlier, otherwise line #38 of make.h provides a
prototype for alloca because there is no alloca.h and AIX is
not defined.
OK then the other #include malloc.h should probably be removed. Thanks!
12 matches
Mail list logo
