Re: [PATCH] Fix PR bootstrap/42798

[Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de>]

* Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 11:42:13PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf.Wildenhues@gmx.de> writes:
> > * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 04:59:01PM CEST:
> >> With regard to the gold change.  What will happen if the system header
> >> files provide only a declaration
> >>     char *basename(const char *)
> >> ?
> >> 
> >> Since gold doesn't actually basename, another option here would be to
> >> skip the check of the basename declaration entirely.  In fact, we
> >> should consider dropping basename from libiberty; our code should in
> >> general use lbasename anyhow.
> >
> > Well, these are two additional changes on top of the one I posted though
> > and can easily be addressed in the future.  Meanwhile, a combined build
> > with maintainer-mode enabled will cause spurious changes to generated
> > files, and the patch is pretty minimal in that it fixes the issues but
> > doesn't change semantics otherwise.  So, ok to commit to src?
> 
> My question about a basename declaration in the system header was a
> genuine question.  My concern is that on some systems this patch might
> decide incorrectly whether or not basename is defined, which could
> then possibly lead to a compilation error when libiberty.h is
> included.

This concern should be addressed with my reply
<http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2010-06/msg00059.html>:
In short, the Autoconf change is designed to handle exactly this case
right both in C and in C++ mode.

> The gold patch is fine if you omit basename entirely from the gold
> configure.ac.  I don't see how that could cause trouble given the
> current libiberty.h.

OK, thanks.

I still need approval for the (really trivial) bfd and opcodes changes.

Cheers,
Ralf