Re: glob_.h & glibc

Okay, I've committed the glob-min-glibc-h-changes2.diff patch. The glob.h-glibc-to-gnulib2.diff should be the new minimal patch for submission to glibc. 2005-09-12 Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * modules/glob (Files): Add glob-libc.h.

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Paul Eggert wrote: >OK, but in that case shouldn't the AC_REQUIRE([AC_GNU_SOURCE]) be in >gl_GLOB rather than gl_PREREQ_GLOB? > > I don't think so. gl_GLOB tests for the _GNU_GLOB_INTERFACE_VERSION macro from & a known bug in GNU glob's POSIX support. Neither requires the GNU extensions enab

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > No, this is exactly what I did, except I forgot to remove the > AC_REQUIRE([AC_GNU_SOURCE]) line. Thinking about it, however, perhaps > it would be best to leave this in, for when libc glob is found and used > and the GNULIB glob isn't needed, to enable t

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Paul Eggert wrote: >I assume you fixed this by removing the AC_REQUIRE([AC_GNU_SOURCE]) >from glob.m4 and restoring the condtional #define __USE_GNU 1 to >glob_.h? If it's more complicated than that, please let me know. > > No, this is exactly what I did, except I forgot to remove the AC_REQUI

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>Fourth, we can AC_REQUIRE AC_GNU_SOURCE, so that we needn't worry about >>__USE_GNU. > > We ran into this problem the first time we went through this: > . Ouch. Sorry I forgot that. I

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Paul Eggert wrote: >Thanks. A few comments. First, that SYS_CDEFS_H thing is really > > This all looks good, except: >Fourth, we can AC_REQUIRE AC_GNU_SOURCE, so that we needn't worry about >__USE_GNU. > > We ran into this problem the first time we went through this:

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It's late, I'm tired. Patches actually attached now. Thanks. A few comments. First, that SYS_CDEFS_H thing is really confusing. Also, I worry that the GLOB_PREFIX thing doesn't respect the POSIX name space rules. How about if we use a new symbol __GLO

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Paul Eggert wrote: >Hmm, actually they provisionally accepted the bug-1060 changes except >for the part about using prototypes when defining external functions. > > Oh, that's what that meant. I was hoping someone else would say something if it was important. Thanks. :) >where glob-libc.h i

Re: glob_.h & glibc

It's late, I'm tired. Patches actually attached now. 2005-09-08 Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * m4/glob.m4 (gl_GLOB_SUBSTITUTE): AC_LIBSOURCE C files. * lib/glob_.h: Move most code forked from glibc here, then include... * lib/glob-glibc.h: ...this new file, which is the original

Re: glob_.h & glibc

Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Re: , glibc > objected to the extent of our changes to an installed header (glob.h) to > bring the file into sync with GNULIB. (They did accept the glob.c > changes, though they have yet to apply them.)

glob_.h & glibc

Re: , glibc objected to the extent of our changes to an installed header (glob.h) to bring the file into sync with GNULIB. (They did accept the glob.c changes, though they have yet to apply them.) It is true, as Roland says, that we could put mo