On 23.11.2012 16:31, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 15:59:16 +0100: >> On 23.11.2012 15:35, Julian Foad wrote: >>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_delta/compat.c:36:0: >>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is >>> not defined >>> -- >>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_delta/svndiff.c:31:0: >>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is >>> not defined >>> -- >>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/auth.c:34:0: >>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is >>> not defined >>> -- >>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-inprocess.c:30:0: >>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is >>> not defined >>> -- >>> In file included from subversion/libsvn_subr/cache-membuffer.c:31:0: >>> ./subversion/svn_private_config.h:236:7: "SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER" is >>> not defined >>> -- >>> [...] >>> >>> (The relevant line number looks like 235 in my editor not 236.) >> Julian, we've had this discussion before. I'm not going to change the >> accepted way of checking autoconf macros just because you insist on >> turning on warnings about perfectly valid and 15-years standard >> behaviour of the C preprocessor. That by the way is not even turned on >> in maintainer-mode. > The warning is useful to catch spelling errors in macros (example: '#if > APR_HAS_IPv6'). > > +1 to changing the code to always define SVN_QSORT_R_NORMAL_ARG_ORDER, > as either 0 or 1. I see no downside to that, do you?
Are we going to change every instance of using #if in the code to check autoconf macros? If yes, please update hacking.html first. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
