James Youngman wrote:
> I suggest
>
> dnl Prior to the 2009-01 updates, IBM C versions 9.0 and 10.1 support
> include_next when used
> dnl as the first preprocessor directive in a file, but not when it is
> preceded by another include
> dnl directive. To work around this, we include here.
> dnl
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> + dnl The include of is because IBM C 9.0, 10.1 (original
> + dnl versions, prior to 2009-01 updates) on AIX 6.1 supports include_next
> + dnl when used as first preprocessor directive in a file, but not when
> + dnl preceded
Albert Chin wrote:
> Patch attached to update wording for m4/include_next.m4 to reveal recent
> IBM PTF's that fix the #include_next bug in IBM C 9.0/10.1.
Thanks. I've applied your comment change as follows, avoiding uncommon
abbreviations.
2009-02-15 Albert Chin-A-Young
* m4/includ
Patch attached to update wording for m4/include_next.m4 to reveal recent
IBM PTF's that fix the #include_next bug in IBM C 9.0/10.1.
--
albert chin (ch...@thewrittenword.com)
>From 9095347bf98b43fce0268d72bef47e74bca1eec1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Albert Chin-A-Young
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009
