Hi Stepan,
On 11/28/06, Stepan Kasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 08:26:20AM -0800, Bruce Korb wrote:
> In this case, truth is, I don't think "wchar.h" requires "runetype.h",
> but rather wint_t type *normally* requires "wchar.h" but, for OS/X,
> it instead requires "runetype.h".
well, I do not see the difference here: wint_t shall be defined in
wchar.h.
Except it is (on OS/X) defined in runetype.h and runetype.h is not
#included by wchar.h. "self sufficient" means that this module:
#include <wchar.h>
int foo = 0;
will compile without error. "I think" (without knowing for certain) that
this will compile on OS/X. However, this module:
#include <wchar.h>
wint_t foo = 0;
will not. But this latter is not a self-sufficiency test. It is a standards
test. It fails that. Therefore, a rigorous CHECK_WINT_T configury
test would need to automatically check for this runetype.h header
and use it if found to test for a system definition of wint_t.
The message which started this thread indicates that if you include
wchar.h alone, the compilation breaks.
Only in conjunction with using the wint_t type.
It seems that including runetype.h before wchar.h fixed that.
So it seems that wchar.h requires runetype.h.
wint_t requires runetype.h. I do not think wchar.h needs it. There
really is a difference, even if a bit subtle.
Regards, Bruce
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
