[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: config.h inclusion
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: config.h inclusion |
Date: |
Thu, 15 Sep 2005 09:45:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
[ copying libtool-patches ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:20:28AM CEST:
> * Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 01:10:53AM CEST:
>
> > Also, now that I think about it I prefer "#if HAVE_CONFIG_H" to
> > "#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H". (I don't know about other people.) But if we
> > remove the #if for non-glibc code, we might as well stick to the glibc
> > convention for the glibc code.
>
> FWIW, I don't have a strong opinion on this issue, but I remember a
> discussion that led to the contrary conclusion a while ago on one of the
> GNU lists. Can't find it now, but found a couple of data points
> nonetheless:
> - #if HAVE_CONFIG_H breaks with the Metrowerks CodeWarrior compiler:
> http://ghostscript.com/pipermail/gs-code-review/2004-December/004721.html
> - GCS (`Conditional Compilation') suggests always defining symbols to
> values, but autoconf does not honor it in the case of HAVE_CONFIG_H.
> - `gcc -Wundef' generates a diagnostic:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bison-patches/2001-12/msg00000.html
Another issue: Packages using libltdl from libtool CVS will break with
`#if HAVE_CONFIG_H', because libltdl macros cause HAVE_CONFIG_H to be
defined as `<config.h>' or similar. One or the other needs to be fixed.
Comments?
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: config.h inclusion,
Ralf Wildenhues <=