[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: argz.m4: error_t handling wrt argz.h and errno.h
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: argz.m4: error_t handling wrt argz.h and errno.h |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:05:19 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
* Mike Frysinger wrote on Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 07:26:16PM CET:
> On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Mike Frysinger wrote on Wed, Feb 13, 2008 at 05:38:05AM CET:
> > > the argz.m4 header checks to see if error_t is defined, but only does so
> > > by including the argz.h header. if you try to build on a system that
> > > does provide error_t, but not argz.h, the argz replacement module fails
> > > to build. on glibc systems, error_t is defined in errno.h. perhaps the
> > > gl_FUNC_ARGZ should be checking to see if errno.h exists and if so,
> > > including it.
> >
> > I don't quite understand. If gl_FUNC_ARGZ finds that error_t is not
> > defined, it defines __error_t_defined in addition to error_t.
>
> this must be a semi-recent addition then ... the package i'm looking at does
> not do that ... here is the snippet from naim:
> # AC_LTDL_FUNC_ARGZ
The current gnulib module is newer, please try that. The macro has also
been renamed to gl_FUNC_ARGZ for gnulib consistency.
> > This should keep your errno.h header from defining error_t.
>
> shouldnt errno.h also be checked for the error_t type since that is where it
> actually gets defined ?
Do you know of a system that has error_t that doesn't use
__error_t_defined?
Cheers,
Ralf