>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