I assume you're building via a custom Makefile and not Autools (configure)? If so, why not generate a dummy config.h in your makefile? I agree with IOhannes: this is standard operating procedure for auto tools projects and, in fact, I use the config.h pattern in other, non configure projects myself.
> On Oct 9, 2024, at 7:21 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2024 08:44:33 -0500 > From: Miller Puckette <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Subject: [PD-dev] #include "config.h" in m_private_utils.h needed? > To: pd-dev <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Message-ID: <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > I heard from an ESPD tester that compiling ESPD sometimes fails because > (for some reason) HAVE_CONFIG_H is defined by the complicated ESP > compile chain but there's no "config.h" in the Pd sources so this fails: > > #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H > /* autotools might put all the HAVE_... defines into "config.h" */ > # include "config.h" > #endif > > It seems a bit fragile anyway... is there a way to make the test more > stringent? Perhaps require that some other symbol be defined by hand > before pulling in "config.h", and/or having some way to specify what > directory to look for config.h in? > > In the meantime I already have to patch the Pd sources slightly to get > ESPD to compile so I can work around this if I have to. > > thanks > > Miller -------- Dan Wilcox danomatika.com <http://danomatika.com/> robotcowboy.com <http://robotcowboy.com/>
--- [email protected] - the Pd developers' mailinglist https://lists.iem.at/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/2S2QXIWGUIU42RO7ANKAIXFP2SNAG5CF/
