Sebastian Schuberth <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> I don't like the idea of introducing a compat/mingw/string.h because
>>> of two reasons: You would have to add a conditional to include that
>>> string.h instead of the system one anyway,
>>
>> With -Icompat/mingw passed to the compiler, which is a bog-standard
>> technique we already use to supply headers the system forgot to
>> supply or override buggy headers the system is shipped with, you do
>> not have to change any "#include <string.h>".
>>
>> Am I mistaken?
>
> Ah, that would work I guess, but you'd still need the include_next.
You can explicitly include the system header from your compatibility
layer, i.e.
=== compat/mingw/string.h ===
#define __NO_INLINE__
#ifdef SYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER
#include SYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER
#else
#include_next <string.h>
#endif
and then in config.mak.uname, do something like this:
ifneq (,$(findstring MINGW,$(uname_S)))
ifndef SYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER
SYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER = "C:\\llvm\include\string.h"
endif
COMPAT_CFLAGS += -DSYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER=$(SYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER)
endif
People who have the system header file at different paths can
further override SYSTEM_STRING_H_HEADER in their config.mak.
That would help compilers targetting mingw that do not support
"#include_next" without spreading the damage to other people's
systems, I think.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
