A patch to constify gcc.c (Really, summarizing remaining warnings)

[Kaveh R. Ghazi]

 > From: Zack Weinberg <zack@rabi.columbia.edu>
 > 
 > For the *_unlocked functions, what do you think of this patch (which I
 > am testing as we speak)?
 > 
 > 1999-03-11 12:23 -0500  Zack Weinberg  <zack@rabi.phys.columbia.edu>
 > 
 > 	* system.h: Use putc_unlocked, fputc_unlocked, and
 > 	fputs_unlocked only if putc_unlocked has a prototype already.
 > 	Prototype fputs_unlocked if necessary.
 > 	* configure.in: Check for prototypes of putc_unlocked and
 > 	fputs_unlocked. 
 > 	* acconfig.h: Updated.


	I have a couple of questions...



 > -#ifdef HAVE_FPUTC_UNLOCKED
 > +#if defined HAVE_FPUTC_UNLOCKED && !defined NEED_DECLARATION_PUTC_UNLOCKED
 > -#ifdef HAVE_FPUTS_UNLOCKED
 > +#if defined HAVE_FPUTS_UNLOCKED && !defined NEED_DECLARATION_PUTC_UNLOCKED


	I'm not sure why you checked for PUTC_UNLOCKED prototypes on
the above lines.  Shouldn't they be checks for FPUTC and FPUTS to
match the function tested for?


 > +# ifdef NEED_DECLARATION_FPUTS_UNLOCKED
 > +extern int fputs_unlocked PROTO ((const char *, FILE *));
 >  #endif


	Why did you decide here to prototype fputs_unlocked but none of
the others?




 >  GCC_NEED_DECLARATIONS(malloc realloc calloc free bcopy bzero bcmp \
 >  	index rindex getenv atol sbrk abort atof strerror getcwd getwd \
 > -	strsignal)
 > +	strsignal putc_unlocked fputs_unlocked)


	In configure.in, why did you only check for two out of three of
the _unlocked functions?  You were consistent with the macros system.h
you actually used, but I wasn't sure why you did this.  Would you please
explain your approach?

		Thanks,
		--Kaveh


PS:  Did it solve the warning problem?
--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			Engagement Manager / Project Services
ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu		Qwest Internet Solutions