On 23.11.2012 16:31, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 15:59:16 +0100:
>> On 23.11.2012 15:35, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_delta/compat.c:36:0:
>>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
>>> --
>>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_delta/svndiff.c:31:0:
>>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
>>> --
>>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/auth.c:34:0:
>>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
>>> --
>>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c:30:0:
>>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
>>> --
>>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-membuffer.c:31:0:
>>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is not defined
>>> --
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> (The relevant line number looks like 235 in my editor not 236.)
>> Julian, we've had this discussion before. I'm not going to change the
>> accepted way of checking autoconf macros just because you insist on
>> turning on warnings about perfectly valid and 15-years standard
>> behaviour of the C preprocessor. That by the way is not even turned on
>> in maintainer-mode.
> The warning is useful to catch spelling errors in macros (example: '#if
> APR_HAS_IPv6').
>
> +1 to changing the code to always define SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER,
> as either 0 or 1. I see no downside to that, do you?
Are we going to change every instance of using #if in the code to check
autoconf macros? If yes, please update hacking.html first.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
Received on 2012-11-23 16:45:30 CET