Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 12 May 2006, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> [...]
>> There's no point, since we haven't yet found a platform that doesn't
>> have them. The defines only exist because of things that autoconf does
>> behind the scenes, we don't explicitly check for
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
[...]
There's no point, since we haven't yet found a platform that doesn't
have them. The defines only exist because of things that autoconf does
behind the scenes, we don't explicitly check for these headers.
And yet there are some places where we
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Either they are conditional and then having ifdefs in only 1/10 of the
> time is useless.
>
> Or they are not and then there's no point in having HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H &
> co.
>
> Any objection to patches that would switch to strict ifdef enforcement
> for
On Fri, 12 May 2006, Huw Davies wrote:
[...]
There is a HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H though. However since HAVE_SYS_TYPES
isn't defined, couldn't you remove the #include too?
Good point. I've removed it and will post an updated patch.
However while investigating this I discovered this comment in
winapi_
> -#ifdef HAVE_SYS_TYPES
> #include
> -#endif
There is a HAVE_SYS_TYPES_H though. However since HAVE_SYS_TYPES
isn't defined, couldn't you remove the #include too?
Huw.
--
Huw Davies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
