Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > How about (b)? It seems the simplest.
> >
> >> (b) Create a replacement that does
> >>
> >> #include
> >> #undef EX_OK
> >> #include
>
> Yes, I think so too. ...
OK, after you both agreed, I commit this:
2007-04-02 Bruno Haible <[EMA
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Possibly the bug-workaround for unistd.h should only be enabled if the
>> sysexits module is present, otherwise the unistd-module would always
>> touch non-standardized namespaces which seems wrong.
>
> I ag
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Possibly the bug-workaround for unistd.h should only be enabled if the
> sysexits module is present, otherwise the unistd-module would always
> touch non-standardized namespaces which seems wrong.
I agree. I'd rather not use the sysexits module, whic
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Warning seen on IRIX 6.5:
>
> "///usr/include/unistd.h", line 43: warning(1047): macro redefined differently
>
> IRIX 6.5 has two definitions of EX_OK:
> - one in , protected with "#if _SGIAPI", as a flag that can be
> passed to the access() functio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 3/25/2007 2:22 PM:
> Warning seen on IRIX 6.5:
>
> "///usr/include/unistd.h", line 43: warning(1047): macro redefined differently
>
> IRIX 6.5 has two definitions of EX_OK:
> - one in , protected with "#if _SGIAPI", as
Warning seen on IRIX 6.5:
"///usr/include/unistd.h", line 43: warning(1047): macro redefined differently
IRIX 6.5 has two definitions of EX_OK:
- one in , protected with "#if _SGIAPI", as a flag that can be
passed to the access() function, with value 020,
- one in , always active, as an e
