[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [bug-gnulib] getdelim declaration conflict on Tru64
From: |
James Youngman |
Subject: |
Re: [bug-gnulib] getdelim declaration conflict on Tru64 |
Date: |
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 23:02:42 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 02:30:37PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> James Youngman <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > The attached email shows how on some versions of HPUX, <stdio.h> also
> > declared getdelim(), but with a size_t return type.
>
> Which version of HPUX is that?
My apologies, upon more careful reading of the problem report, it
appears to be Tru64 (hence change in Subject: line): -
% cc -V
Compaq C V6.5-207 (dtk) on Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1B (Rev. 2650)
Compiler Driver V6.5-207 (dtk) (dtk) cc Driver
% ./configure && mak ^He ^H^H^H^H]
% stty dec
% ./configure && make all check
checking build system type... alphaev7-dec-osf5.1b
checking host system type... alphaev7-dec-osf5.1b
[...]
cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -c
fnmatch.cgcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -c
getcwd.c
In file included from getcwd.h:24,
from getcwd.c:24:
/usr/local/include/stdlib.h:98: warning: conflicting types for built-in
function `llabs'
gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../.. -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -c
getline.cIn file included from getline.c:26:
getline.h:32: error: conflicting types for `gnu_getline'
/usr/local/include/stdio.h:62: error: previous declaration of `gnu_getline'
getline.h:35: error: conflicting types for `getdelim'
/usr/local/include/stdio.h:61: error: previous declaration of `getdelim'
*** Exit 1
> If they're messing with locally-installed stdio.h files, my first
> suggestion would be to remove those files, as they'll probably break
> other packages too.
Yes, this is an HP/Compaq "testdrive" box. Goodness knows what
they've done with it.
> I've never heard of getdelim returning size_t, and I can't find any
> evidence of such things on the the net. For now I'd make this low
> priority, as it appears to be a local aberration.
Thanks. I'll take your advice.
James.