lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-05 22:41    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans