Jim Meyering wrote: > However, I'm reluctant to remove the AC_REQUIRE, since > that would make the code+.m4 combination depend silently on > having a particular implementation of free.
Yes, I understand. By looking at the source code, it's not immediately clear which free() variant is meant. > Thinking about it some more, it seems backwards to move the > dependency information from the .m4 file to the module file. > I think of the .m4 file as recording dependencies inherent in the > corresponding source files. The benefit of the module dependency is that it is immune against changes in the interface of the other module. For example, when you rename jm_SSIZE_T to gl_TYPE_SSIZE_T, or add other lines in the "configure.ac" section of the module, the higher-level module doesn't need to be changed. The drawback is obviously that if you have several source files gathered in a module, you lose track which file needs what, if you don't have a more fine-grained way of tracking the dependency. You could choose to track them through comments. Or in the .m4 file. Either is fine with me. > How about if we leave the now-redundant > AC_REQUIRE in place for now? Done. I committed only the other part. Bruno _______________________________________________ bug-gnulib mailing list bug-gnulib@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnulib