>From 9095347bf98b43fce0268d72bef47e74bca1eec1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Albert Chin-A-Young Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 14:04:05 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Include PTF's that fix #include_next bug on IBM C 9.0/10.1. * m4/include_next.m4: Update wording about IBM C 9.0/10.1 bug now that PTF's are available from IBM to fix the issue. --- m4/include_next.m4 | 18 ++++++++++-------- 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/m4/include_next.m4 b/m4/include_next.m4 index 062753c..5ee1320 100644 --- a/m4/include_next.m4 +++ b/m4/include_next.m4 @@ -32,14 +32,16 @@ AC_DEFUN([gl_INCLUDE_NEXT], [gl_cv_have_include_next], [rm -rf conftestd1a conftestd1b conftestd2 mkdir conftestd1a conftestd1b conftestd2 - dnl The include of is because IBM C 9.0 on AIX 6.1 supports - dnl include_next when used as first preprocessor directive in a file, - dnl but not when preceded by another include directive. Additionally, - dnl with this same compiler, include_next is a no-op when used in a - dnl header file that was included by specifying its absolute file name. - dnl Despite these two bugs, include_next is used in the compiler's - dnl . By virtue of the second bug, we need to use include_next - dnl as well in this case. + dnl The include of is because IBM C 9.0 and 10.1 + dnl (without Jan 2009 PTF, Feb 2009 PTF, respectively) supports + dnl include_next when used as first preprocessor directive in a + dnl file, but not when preceded by another include directive. + dnl Additionally, with this same compiler, include_next is a + dnl no-op when used in a header file that was included by + dnl specifying its absolute file name. Despite these two bugs, + dnl include_next is used in the compiler's . By virtue of + dnl the second bug, we need to use include_next as well in this + dnl case. cat < conftestd1a/conftest.h #define DEFINED_IN_CONFTESTD1 #include_next -- 1.5.4.3