[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) wrote:
> Hmm. Just noticed that those files are normally mirrored from
> gettext (see gnulib/config/srclist.txt).
>
> Yes, although I haven't "auto"updated yet because of those differences.
>
> Bruno, would you accept Ralf's patch so we don't have to
>
Hmm. Just noticed that those files are normally mirrored from
gettext (see gnulib/config/srclist.txt).
Yes, although I haven't "auto"updated yet because of those differences.
Bruno, would you accept Ralf's patch so we don't have to
decouple those files?
Per Bruno, the checking/m
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following patch changes the last files over to the agreed-to style
> for inclusion of `config.h'.
>
> * lib/mkdtemp.c, lib/setenv.c, lib/unsetenv.c: Normalize
> inclusion of `config.h'.
Applied.
Hmm. Just noticed that those files are no
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following patch changes the last files over to the agreed-to style
> for inclusion of `config.h'.
>
> * lib/mkdtemp.c, lib/setenv.c, lib/unsetenv.c: Normalize
> inclusion of `config.h'.
Thanks.
Applied.
The following patch changes the last files over to the agreed-to style
for inclusion of `config.h'.
Cheers,
Ralf
* lib/mkdtemp.c, lib/setenv.c, lib/unsetenv.c: Normalize
inclusion of `config.h'.
Index: lib/mkdtemp.c
Hi Paul, Bruno,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 07:31:27PM CEST:
>
> Since there was general agreement I installed all the
> patches, except for the following files:
>
> mkdtemp.c
> setenv.c
> unsetenv.c
>
> argp-eexst.c
> argp-fmtstream.c
> argp-fmtstream.h
> argp-fs-xinl.c
> argp-
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK. Here's the second patch updated, then.
Thanks. Since there was general agreement I installed all the
patches, except for the following files:
mkdtemp.c
setenv.c
unsetenv.c
argp-eexst.c
argp-fmtstream.c
argp-fmtstream.h
argp-fs-xinl.c
argp-xinl
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 09:45:20AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:20:28AM CEST:
> > * Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:10:53AM CEST:
> >
> > > Also, now that I think about it I prefer "#if HAVE_CONFIG_H" to
> > > "#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
Hi Paul, Noah,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 04:56:04PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I learned about this issue while actually trying to make use of a module
> > with one of the unguarded files; I did not use AC_CONFIG_HEADERS.
>
> Ok, sorry, I didn't k
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I learned about this issue while actually trying to make use of a module
> with one of the unguarded files; I did not use AC_CONFIG_HEADERS.
Ok, sorry, I didn't know people still did that. In that case, let's
keep the #if.
> Surely there are also re
[ copying libtool-patches ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:20:28AM CEST:
> * Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:10:53AM CEST:
>
> > Also, now that I think about it I prefer "#if HAVE_CONFIG_H" to
> > "#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H". (I don't know about other people.) But if
Hi Paul, Simon, Bruno,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:10:53AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1) Fix the files that forgot to guard inclusion by HAVE_CONFIG_H.
> >This is the first patch.
>
> Actually, I was thinking that we should go the other way,
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1) Fix the files that forgot to guard inclusion by HAVE_CONFIG_H.
>This is the first patch.
Actually, I was thinking that we should go the other way, and include
config.h unconditionally (except for glibc-derived code). As far as I
know, nobody o
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Thinking out loud, `#if HAVE*' vs. `#ifdef HAVE*' also could be
> uniformized for other values of `*' .. not sure it's worth the effort.
If we were to do this, then towards #if, not towards #ifdef.
$ grep '# *if HAVE_' *.h *.c | wc -l
429
$ grep '# *ifdef HAVE_' *.h *
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I have added a warning to the headers that config.h needs to be
>included beforehand.
Do we really need this comment? It is better to document this in
doc/gnulib.texi, in my opinion. Then it will cover all files, not
only the one where we rem
Hi Paul,
* Paul Eggert wrote on Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 01:21:18AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Would you accept a patch to change all of these to use
> > #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
> > # include
> > #endif
> >
> > uniformly?
>
> That makes sense to me, yes. We should be co
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would you accept a patch to change all of these to use
> #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
> # include
> #endif
>
> uniformly?
That makes sense to me, yes. We should be consistent, and that's the
majority usage.
Also, no .h file should include config.h. This i
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 03:55:33PM CEST:
>
> Right now, roughly 230 files in gnulib/lib include config.h.
> 210 of those #include , the rest "config.h".
> 10 of all of them are not guarded by HAVE_CONFIG_H, about half of the
> others by `#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H', and half by `
Hi there,
Right now, roughly 230 files in gnulib/lib include config.h.
210 of those #include , the rest "config.h".
10 of all of them are not guarded by HAVE_CONFIG_H, about half of the
others by `#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H', and half by `#if HAVE_CONFIG_H'.
Would you accept a patch to change all of th
19 matches
Mail list logo
