bug-cvs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Windows Build Broken: /ccvs/lib/ getopt.h, getopt_.h, getopt_int.h


From: Conrad T. Pino
Subject: RE: Windows Build Broken: /ccvs/lib/ getopt.h, getopt_.h, getopt_int.h
Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2004 14:50:44 -0700

Hi Derek,

> From: Derek Robert Price
> 
> That just leaves the one header macro, HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H looking for
> stdio_ext.h, which I am guessing Windows does not have, and the four
> function macros, HAVE_STRCASECMP, HAVE_STRNCASECMP, HAVE_WMEMCHR, and
> HAVE_WMEMCPY, looking for strcasecmp(), strncasecmp(), wmemchr(), and
> wmemcpy(), respectively.

My installation of Windows 2000 with Visual Studio 6.0 has no
"stdio_ext.h" file anywhere on the system.  Looks to me like
it should be #undef HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H based on comments.

The only references are:

        H:\cvs-1.12>grep -dn HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H *.h
        File windows-NT\config.h:
        490     #undef HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H

        H:\cvs-1.12>grep -dn HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H *.c
        File lib\getpass.c:
        26      #if _LIBC
        27      # define HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H 1
        28      #endif
        33      #if HAVE_STDIO_EXT_H

        H:\cvs-1.12>

and a #undef work with the above.

> A quick web search on MSDN brings up entries for wmemchr() and
> wmemcpy(), but none of the others.  Glancing at some of the older
> defines we haven't bothered with, defining HAVE_WMEMCHR & HAVE_WMEMCPY
> would probably require defining at least HAVE_WCHAR_H & HAVE_WCHAR_T
> too, so maybe it's not worth the trouble of investigating and testing
> just now.  If you don't have the time or inclination, go ahead and
> commit undefs on all of them since it works now.

The web search of MSDN I assume is same as yours and I read that to
mean they are in Visual Studio .NET and not in Visual Studio 6.0 since
my trial program with VC6 fails to resolve any of the 4 functions.

I will commit 5 #undef additions later (tonight or tomorrow) barring
any objections made known before then.

> Cheers,
> 
> Derek

Conrad





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]