Doesn't AC_TRY_COMPILE() succeed if there is a warning? I think your
patch only helps on rare systems where the compiler won't compile it
at all if the const-ness doesn't match the iconv() prototype. Yeah,
that is an improvement over the current situation but it would be nice
to get rid of the problem -- warning or error -- altogether.
Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> > There was some discussion about iconv prototyes here recently, but I kind of
> > missed it.
> >
> > Do we always need to live with a warning about a type mismatch, or is the
> > cast below appropriate?
> >
> > IOW, do some headers have "const" on them, and others not?
>
> Yup, you cannot just use a cast, you need to use a HAVE...
> test because headers differ and newer versions of
> gcc will generate an error on a plain cast.
What does "plain cast" in this sense mean?
> Here is the bit of code from the Jikes java compiler
> that deals with this issue.
>
> size_t n = iconv(_converter,
> #ifdef HAVE_ERROR_CALL_ICONV_CONST
> (char **)
> #endif
> &source_ptr, &srcl,
> (char **)&chp, &chl
> );
The code would be nicer if we define ICONV_INBUF_TYPE to "char **" or
"const char **" and then do
n = iconv(_converter,
(ICONV_INBUF_TYPE)&source_ptr, &srcl,
(char **)&chp, &chl);
but that is a minor detail (particularly since we have so few calls to
iconv).
Is it reasonable to test for a compile *warning* via autoconf?
--
Jeff Trawick | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
