[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: strdup falsely detected when CFLAGS contains -ansi on MSYS/MinGW (gc
Re: strdup falsely detected when CFLAGS contains -ansi on MSYS/MinGW (gcc)
Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:38:41 -0500
Thunderbird 22.214.171.124 (Macintosh/20071210)
Eric Blake wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
According to Chris Pickett on 12/29/2008 4:06 PM:
In this case, it still doesn't make a difference.
Which means that either AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS needs to be taught how to
override 'cc -ansi' on mingw, or you are getting exactly what you asked
for by asking for such a strict compilation environment, since strdup is
_not_ an ansi function.
I use -ansi for its other features. Maybe all that's needed is for
AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS to #undef __STRICT_ANSI__? I think this is
logical, but I lack the experience to say whether it breaks things.
I looked at the
output from configure and it seems like it gets run after AC_PROG_CC
regardless, i.e. `checking for minix/config.h usability' comes after
`checking for unistd.h' and all the other C compiler stuff.
Yeah, AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS has an implicit AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC]),
so you are pretty much guaranteed that the compiler existence will be
checked prior to determining the right flags/defines to enable various
Nevertheless, maybe you want 1.patch.
I'm not sure that it helps much, but if someone else agrees that adding
the phrase "but after AC_PROG_CC" helped, I'll apply it. By the way,
patches are easier to review with a ChangeLog entry, or even when created
by 'git format-patch' with a commit message that can be converted into a
Ok, I will look into it if I send more patches. Since you have the
implicit AC_REQUIRE([AC_PROG_CC]) already, it seems it doesn't matter.
Maybe you want 2.patch. I'm not sure if what I wrote is correct, but I
didn't find any indications to the contrary.
There are four categories of functions:
declared and linkable (for example, strcpy)
undeclared and not linkable (for example, obstack_grow on non-glibc)
declared but not linkable (for example, isnan, which POSIX says must be a
macro and therefore does not have to be linkable. Also, things like
freopen sometimes fall here, where platforms #define it to freopen64; and
we have even seen broken headers that declare an unavailable function)
undeclared but linkable (for example, strdup in your scenario)
Well then, clearly declared does not always imply linkable.
Currently I am using:
for things like malloc() that are broken, and
for things that are undeclared but that may or may not be linkable. I
think a section detailing the different possibilities and the different
recommended #if checks would help. I suppose you have another 3
categories of function if you include broken/working. It would be 4
except that undeclared and not linkable and broken isn't really logical.
gnulib tends to be a pretty good collection of wisdom about which
functions fall in the various categories.
I'm sure you are right and I'm probably going to just bite the bullet
and switch to gnulib to avoid reinventing the wheel.
Finally, I suggest a macro that combines AC_REPLACE_FUNCS and
AC_CHECK_DECLS and that this new macro become the recommended usage. On
the other hand, is there ever a time that you explicitly don't want a
function to be listed in both AC_REPLACE_FUNCS and AC_CHECK_DECLS? If
not, maybe you can simply get AC_REPLACE_FUNCS to run AC_CHECK_DECLS.
For backward compatibility reasons, we can't change AC_REPLACE_FUNCS.
Your suggestion of a new macro that tests for both linkability and
declaration in one go, may have merit, but as gnulib has discovered,
sometimes one of the two tests is unnecessary, leading to unnecessary time
spent during configure runs (or even misleading or wrong answers, in the
case of isnan). I'm not bothered enough by it myself to write a macro,
but I'm not opposed to reviewing such a patch, so care to attempt writing
such a patch? It will probably be non-trivial, so you may want to take
care of copyright assignment papers first.
If it's non-trivial it probably isn't worth writing since the number of
saved bytes is small. Copyright assignment involves annoying wrangling
with various people on my end, and I sort of have lots to do already
coding-wise. Excuses, excuses. I do appreciate the invitation though.
I currently have:
AC_REPLACE_FUNCS([fileno localtime_r setenv sleep strdup strsignal
AC_CHECK_DECLS([fileno, localtime_r, malloc, realloc, setenv, sleep,
strdup, strsignal, unsetenv])
and I'm happy enough with that.
As to your proposed 2.patch, I'll have to think about whether that wording
helps, or whether yet another wording also makes things more clear. But I
will probably end up committing at least something that reminds people
that AC_REPLACE_FUNCS only kicks in on failed links, and that failed
declarations are also worth checking.
My wording is incorrect based on your analysis above.