Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 5 Oct 2006 22:37:40 +0200 (MEST) | | From | Jan Engelhardt <> | | Subject | Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef |
| |
>> However, there are three main reasons why I pledge for sunifdef >> compatibility: >> >> 1. There is a project page and an inviting community >> 2. There is HTML documentation >> 3. They use autotools, which is distributor and administrator-friendly
autotools is, in some places, not developer friendly. A V=1 feature like the kernel's makefile system has would be beneficial, as well as the possibility to use PIC-compiled objects for PIE-executables (which currently throws an error on some distros, and requires workarounds, like the *-nolibtool files in pam_mount)
>> gcc -O2 -m64 -c -o unifdef.o unifdef.c >> unifdef.c: In function 'main': >> unifdef.c:129: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in >> function 'exit' >> unifdef.c:157: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in >> function 'exit' >> unifdef.c:180: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in >> function 'exit' >> gcc unifdef.o -o unifdef >Patches appreciated - seems a simple #include is missing.
#include <stdlib.h>
-`J' -- - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |