Hi Paul, Simon, Bruno, * Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:10:53AM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 1) Fix the files that forgot to guard inclusion by HAVE_CONFIG_H. > > This is the first patch. > > Actually, I was thinking that we should go the other way, and include > config.h unconditionally (except for glibc-derived code). As far as I > know, nobody outside of glibc uses this code without also defining > HAVE_CONFIG_H. In the meantime let's leave this alone.
I don't understand this. If we were to include it conditionally, it would not break _anything_, not even future users that happen not to use config.h. gnulib is also intended for new use (in `situations not anticipated before'), right? Unconditionally, you force users to use config.h. Maybe you should also force use of AC_CONFIG_HEADERS, similar to how libltdl tries to do it? (I really think this is a bad idea in general, don't go this way, please.) I learned about this issue while actually trying to make use of a module with one of the unguarded files; I did not use AC_CONFIG_HEADERS. > Also, now that I think about it I prefer "#if HAVE_CONFIG_H" to > "#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H". (I don't know about other people.) But if we > remove the #if for non-glibc code, we might as well stick to the glibc > convention for the glibc code. FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I remember a discussion that led to the contrary conclusion a while ago on one of the GNU lists. Can't find it now, but found a couple of data points nonetheless: - #if HAVE_CONFIG_H breaks with the Metrowerks CodeWarrior compiler: http://ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-code-review/2004-December/004721.html - GCS (`Conditional Compilation') suggests always defining symbols to values, but autoconf does not honor it in the case of HAVE_CONFIG_H. - `gcc -Wundef' generates a diagnostic: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2001-12/msg00000.html Surely there are also reasons for `#if'. > > -#if HAVE_CONFIG_H > > -# include <config.h> > > -#endif > > +/* You must include config.h before including this file. */ > > Let's omit the comment. That's understood, in all gnulib source code. > (We can remove any instances of the comment that are already there.) Fine with me. * Simon Josefsson wrote on Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:48:28PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I have added a warning to the headers that config.h needs to be > > included beforehand. > > Do we really need this comment? It is better to document this in > doc/gnulib.texi, in my opinion. Then it will cover all files, not > only the one where we remember to add the comment to. ACK, see above. I'll be happy to produce a new set of patches, after reaching consensus. * Bruno Haible wrote on Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 10:48:32PM CEST: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Thinking out loud, `#if HAVE*' vs. `#ifdef HAVE*' also could be > > uniformized for other values of `*' .. not sure it's worth the effort. > > If we were to do this, then towards #if, not towards #ifdef. > > $ grep '# *if HAVE_' *.h *.c | wc -l > 429 > $ grep '# *ifdef HAVE_' *.h *.c | wc -l > 197 > > The reason is that some *.m4 files need to define HAVE_FOOBAR to 0 when foobar > is absent; this is useful for using HAVE_FOOBAR as a C expression. But > we don't want to have to think about the difference between "#if HAVE_" and > "#ifdef HAVE_". So the choice is to canonicalize on "#if HAVE_". It may not be useful after all to canonicalize every macro (!=HAVE_CONFIG_H), for reasons stated above. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib
