Re: lbasname (branch)

[DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>]

> > Did the workaround get checked into the branch?
> 
> Hmmm.  Workaround for what?  I've not applied anything to branch, so if
> something was broken before it still is (I assume you're talking about
> the compiler proper, not CPP).

There was one patch to something that called basename that kicked off
this whole set of changes, and a small patch was posted to just not
call basename that way.

> > If so, then what benefit would it add?
> 
> I'd like to get my CPP file fixes into branch; unfortunately they use
> lbasename ().  I could use something else, or a local copy, but I'd
> rather not.  If lbasename () stays out, I might as well leave CPP alone
> too.
> 
> > I think at this point, the less unnecessary change in the branch, the
> > better.
> 
> It's not strictly necessary, but fixes roughly ten minor issues.

Well, if your other patches are otherwise accepted for the branch, I
have no problems with lbasename() going with them.