Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Considering that this will appear in nearly every .c file in gnulib/lib,
>
> You mean, in gnulib/tests/, I guess?
Yes.
>> Then, each use would be more concise:
>>
>> GL_SIG_CHECK (atexit, int, (void (*) (void)));
>
> I like the idea: it provides an abstraction over this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 12/23/2009 5:22 AM:
>> Considering that this will appear in nearly every .c file in gnulib/lib,
>
> You mean, in gnulib/tests/, I guess?
My use of the signature check was only in gnulib/tests.
>
>> Then, each use would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 12/23/2009 3:32 AM:
>> I went with signature_check.
>
> I like it. And yes, we need to make it non-'static', like so many other stuff
> in unit tests that we don't want gcc to warn about.
I can go either way on static vs.
Hi Jim,
>> > +static int (* _UNUSED_PARAMETER_ signature_check) (void (*) (void)) =
>> > atexit;
>
> Considering that this will appear in nearly every .c file in gnulib/lib,
You mean, in gnulib/tests/, I guess?
> Then, each use would be more concise:
>
> GL_SIG_CHECK (atexit, int, (void (
Eric Blake wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
>> > +int (*signature_check) (void (*) (void)) = atexit;
>>
>> I haven't looked carefully at each or tested, but...
>> please use the "static" attribute on all of those,
>> as in your example above.
>
> I thought about that, but with:
>
> +s
Hi Eric,
> > > in order to validate that a function is correctly declared when the user
> > > includes just the one header named in the standards. We can then fix the
> > > fallout by making the *.in.h headers pull in the necessary pre-requisites
> > > for
> > > functions that declared in the wr
Hi Eric,
> --- a/lib/unistd.in.h
> +++ b/lib/unistd.in.h
> @@ -346,9 +346,6 @@ extern int ftruncate (int fd, off_t length);
>
>
> #if @GNULIB_GETCWD@
> -/* Include the headers that might declare getcwd so that they will not
> - cause confusion if included after this file. */
> -# include
>
Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
> > +int (*signature_check) (void (*) (void)) = atexit;
>
> I haven't looked carefully at each or tested, but...
> please use the "static" attribute on all of those,
> as in your example above.
I thought about that, but with:
+static int (*signature_check) (
Eric Blake wrote:
> Jim Meyering meyering.net> writes:
>
>> > +static int (*check) (char const *, int, char const *) = symlinkat;
>> > +
>> > in order to validate that a function is correctly declared when the user
>> > includes just the one header named in the standards. We can then fix the
>> >
Eric Blake wrote:
> +static int (*check) (char const *, int, char const *) = symlinkat;
> +
> #include
> #include
> #include
>
> in order to validate that a function is correctly declared when the user
> includes just the one header named in the standards. We can then fix the
> fallout by ma
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
> I got this failure on cygwin, when building m4 with -DGNULIB_POSIXCHECK (m4
> does not use the getsubopt module):
>
> gcc -std=gnu99 -I. -I../../lib -I/cygdrive/c/cygwin/usr/local/include -
> DGNULIB_POSIXCHECK=1 -MT gl_avltree_oset.o -MD -MP -
> MF .deps/gl_av
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
> On cygwin, compiling with -DGNULIB_POSIXCHECK failed because
> the getsubopt link warning definition interfered with the
> inclusion of the system header. The fix, as always in these
> types of problems, is to ensure that system headers are
> completely included bef
12 matches
Mail list logo
