Re: dummy: fix for Solaris compiler

2007-03-16 Thread James Youngman
On 3/16/07, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The 'dummy' module is hardly used in practice, because it gets disabled as soon as you have at least one gnulib module with an unconditional lib_SOURCES augmentation. IMHO it's the things that only happen sometimes that really bite you in the

Re: dummy: fix for Solaris compiler

2007-03-15 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The 'dummy' module is hardly used in practice, because it gets disabled > as soon as you have at least one gnulib module with an unconditional > lib_SOURCES augmentation. But anyway, it doesn't cost much to choose a > different symbol. I applied this: II

Re: dummy: fix for Solaris compiler

2007-03-15 Thread Bruno Haible
James Youngman wrote: > On 3/11/07, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] > > + #ifdef __sun > > + /* This declaration ensures that the library will export at least 1 > > symbol. */ > > + int dummy; > > + #else > [...] > > Could we maybe pick an external symbol name that's less likely

Re: dummy: fix for Solaris compiler

2007-03-13 Thread James Youngman
On 3/11/07, Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] + #ifdef __sun + /* This declaration ensures that the library will export at least 1 symbol. */ + int dummy; + #else [...] Could we maybe pick an external symbol name that's less likely to clash? I don't mind gnulib defining external