From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-39386-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24117 invoked by alias); 12 May 2005 15:42:24 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 23938 invoked from network); 12 May 2005 15:42:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 May 2005 15:42:18 -0000
Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-254-105.inter.net.il [83.130.254.105])
	by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR)
	with ESMTP id BEY13049 (AUTH halo1);
	Thu, 12 May 2005 18:42:11 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 15:45:00 -0000
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Message-ID: <01c55708$Blat.v2.4$cfc9f040@zahav.net.il>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
In-reply-to: <20050512150804.GA1808@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel
	Jacobowitz on Thu, 12 May 2005 11:08:04 -0400)
Subject: Re: [RFA] Eliminate warnings about snprintf declaration
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
References: <01c4c990$Blat.v2.2.2$887ec720@zahav.net.il> <41994B9D.9080809@gnu.org> <01c55702$Blat.v2.4$d4764900@zahav.net.il> <20050512150804.GA1808@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00289.txt.bz2

> Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:08:04 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
> 
> I recommend copying the libiberty maintainers directly to get their
> attention.

Errr... who are they?  libiberty/README says to send patches to
gcc-patches, which I did.  What am I missing?

> Also, this isn't useful:
> 
> > @@ -282,7 +282,7 @@
> >    sysconf times sbrk gettimeofday ffs snprintf vsnprintf \
> >    pstat_getstatic pstat_getdynamic sysmp getsysinfo table sysctl wait3 wait4 \
> >    realpath canonicalize_file_name __fsetlocking)
> > -  AC_CHECK_DECLS([basename, ffs, asprintf, vasprintf])
> > +  AC_CHECK_DECLS([basename, ffs, asprintf, vasprintf, snprintf, vsnprintf])
> >    AC_DEFINE(HAVE_SYS_ERRLIST, 1, [Define if you have the sys_errlist variable.])
> >    AC_DEFINE(HAVE_SYS_NERR,    1, [Define if you have the sys_nerr variable.])
> >    AC_DEFINE(HAVE_SYS_SIGLIST, 1, [Define if you have the sys_siglist variable.])
> > @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@
> >      [AC_MSG_RESULT([no])])
> >  
> >    AC_CHECK_FUNCS($checkfuncs)
> > -  AC_CHECK_DECLS([basename, ffs, asprintf, vasprintf])
> > +  AC_CHECK_DECLS([basename, ffs, asprintf, vasprintf, snprintf, vsnprintf])
> >    libiberty_NEED_DECLARATION(canonicalize_file_name)
> >  fi
> 
> That will only affect libiberty.h when building libiberty; it won't
> affect the users of libiberty.

Then how does one cause libiberty/configure to check for these
declarations and edit libiberty/config.h accordingly?  I thought one
should modify configure.ac and the regenerate configure, no?

> I believe you've got this logic reversed.  You also don't want or need
> the non-prototype - it's only needed for basename because basename
> returns a pointer.  How about this, based on the later examples in the
> file:

Okay.  But I guess I should wait for approval by libiberty maintainers
first.

Thanks.