Re: [Cvs-dev] Re: [Cvs-test-results] Build CVS (TRUNK) failed.

2006-06-11 Thread Mark D. Baushke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The current test that checks for the existence of isn't > > sufficient on SGI when using the compiler in (its default?) C89 mode, > > because the SGI compil

Re: [Cvs-dev] Re: [Cvs-test-results] Build CVS (TRUNK) failed.

2006-06-11 Thread Paul Eggert
"Derek R. Price" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The current test that checks for the existence of isn't > sufficient on SGI when using the compiler in (its default?) C89 mode, > because the SGI compiler doesn't have fatal #error directives: If you ignore the warning, does anything break? If not,

Re: [Cvs-dev] Re: [Cvs-test-results] Build CVS (TRUNK) failed.

2006-06-11 Thread Derek R. Price
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, The current test that checks for the existence of isn't sufficient on SGI when using the compiler in (its default?) C89 mode, because the SGI compiler doesn't have fatal #error directives: Larry Jones wrote: > Well, it appears that it is com

Re: portability of errno?

2006-06-11 Thread Paul Eggert
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now that gnulib assumes C89 or better, do we still need the code in > strto[dl].c, unicodeio.c, and unsetenv.c that does this? > > #ifndef errno > extern int errno; > #endif I don't think so, not any more. It used to be that we merely assumed C89 freestan

Re: Buglet in getdate.y

2006-06-11 Thread Paul Eggert
Thanks for pointing that out. There's a similar problem in utimens.c. I fixed them both.