This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RFA: include/*.h {Free,Net}BSD have correct prototypes for getopt() and basename().


 > From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
 >  
 > "Kaveh R. Ghazi" wrote:
 > > 
 > > [...discussion about basename/getopt decl for libiberty...]
 > > 
 > > Er, sorry if this was already discussed, but why exactly are we
 > > wrestling with this instead of using AC_NEED_DECLARATION(basename) ?
 > > 
 > > We could easily copy this macro from gcc/aclocal/m4 into the libiberty
 > > directory.  And then we could take advantage of it to handle other
 > > function decls too.  (E.g. strsignal.)
 >  
 > (Thanks for the pointer to GCC_NEED_DECLARATION, I'll use something like
 > that in GDB).

Great.  I think something like it will be bundled in a future version
of autoconf.



 > Any way, the question isn't so much about how to detect the need
 > for the basename declaration but rather what signature to use when
 > one is needed.

I disagree, once we determine that the system doesn't provide one, we
simply issue the libiberty declaration.  It cannot conflict with
another declaration because there is nothing to conflict with.

I think the signature differences are really only const-ness.  So even
if the system has e.g. basename, but not a decl, emiting the libiberty
style decl won't be a problem.  



 >  At present libiberty provides ``char *basename (const char*)''
 > but given both liberty's implementation and the formal specification of
 > that function, the current signature is clearly wrong.

Again, if we determine a particular system doesn't provide a decl,
then IMHO there is no harm with issuing the libiberty one.

(What is the "formal" basename behavior again?)


 > If I submit a patch to ``fix it'' I know I'm going to cop flack.  (The
 > question I'm wrestling with is how much flack am I willing to incure :-)
 >         enjoy,
 >                 Andrew

I'm not sure why you feel you'll get "flack" for submitting a patch.
If you like, I'll do it.

		--Kaveh
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]