*I* Soren A <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> A part of <make.h> needs to be rewritten because it appears that at
> some point an ad-hoc (?) addition was made to try to deal with lack of
> bcopy(), but was done not properly, by getting into configure and
> making the needed changes there.
I realized after sending that the way i phrased this might be
misconstrued and seem abrasive. Sorry; i didn't mean to imply any
criticism. What i wrote reflects my previous speculations when i looked
at the sources, that the 'configure' for make seemed to check for many
functions in a very systematic way (in 'config.h.in' and 'configure.in')
but wasn't handling bcopy() and memmove() in the same way. I guessed
based on that speculation, that at some point someone might have
submitted a patch (that affected 'make.h') that didn't do the whole job
(which requires affecting changes to 'config.h.in' and 'configure.in' as
well as 'make.h'). Otherwise it doesn't make any sense that make.h is
checking for some macro based on working memmove() and some macro based
on ! working bcopy(), but nowhere are those macros being defined.
Best,
Soren A
_______________________________________________
Bug-make mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
