Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Warning seen on IRIX 6.5: > > "///usr/include/unistd.h", line 43: warning(1047): macro redefined differently > > IRIX 6.5 has two definitions of EX_OK: > - one in <unistd.h>, protected with "#if _SGIAPI", as a flag that can be > passed to the access() function, with value 020, > - one in <sysexits.h>, always active, as an exit code, with value 0. > > Which definition is active, thus depends on the order of inclusion. > > What should we do? > > (a) Do nothing. > > (b) Create a replacement <sysexits.h> that does > > #include <unistd.h> > #undef EX_OK > #include </usr/include/sysexits.h> > > (c) Create a replacement <unistd.h> that does > > #include </usr/include/unistd.h> > #undef EX_OK > > and a replacement <sysexits.h> that does > > #include <unistd.h> > #include </usr/include/sysexits.h>
I prefer b) and c) over a), since I think this may cause problems if anyone is using EX_OK. I have a mild preference to treat this as a bug in unistd.h, and thus favor c). Possibly the bug-workaround for unistd.h should only be enabled if the sysexits module is present, otherwise the unistd-module would always touch non-standardized namespaces which seems wrong. Thus: e) Create a replacement <unistd.h> that does: #include </usr/include/unistd.h> #if @GNULIB_SYSEXITS@ # undef EX_OK #endif What do you think? Possibly e) should also add the sysexits.h replacement, as per c). /Simon
