Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Werner LEMBERG
>> Looks good, thanks! Eli, do you have time to test it? > > If you commit the proceeds into the Groff repo, I could try testing > tomorrow. I've just committed Daiki-san's patch to the groff repository. Thanks! Werner

Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Daiki Ueno
Eric Blake writes: > m4_foreach causes the loop to be expanded at m4 time (a larger configure > file). In this case, you could probably easily get by with a shell loop > instead, for a smaller configure file (untested): > >for type in 'char **' 'const char **'; do > AC_RUN_IFELS

Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Eric Blake
On 10/21/2014 03:30 AM, Daiki Ueno wrote: > Werner LEMBERG writes: > Given that the intention of the above test is to check if the iconv function works properly, maybe a workaround would be to use the fixed prototype of iconv (as attached)? >>> >>> Sorry, that was obviously wrong.

Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 14:34:17 +0200 (CEST) > Cc: e...@gnu.org, bug-gnulib@gnu.org > From: Werner LEMBERG > > > > The attached patch seems to work with both cases. > > Looks good, thanks! Eli, do you have time to test it? If you commit the proceeds into the Groff repo, I could try testing

Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> The attached patch seems to work with both cases. Looks good, thanks! Eli, do you have time to test it? Werner

Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Daiki Ueno
Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> Given that the intention of the above test is to check if the iconv >>> function works properly, maybe a workaround would be to use the >>> fixed prototype of iconv (as attached)? >> >> Sorry, that was obviously wrong. The other idea is to suppress the >> error with a

Re: libiconv detection failure

2014-10-21 Thread Werner LEMBERG
>> Given that the intention of the above test is to check if the iconv >> function works properly, maybe a workaround would be to use the >> fixed prototype of iconv (as attached)? > > Sorry, that was obviously wrong. The other idea is to suppress the > error with a pragma, but I guess it would