[Bastien, there's no point in removing bug-gnulib from the CC.]
bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > How does the config.h look like that does not work for you?
>
> See previous answer.
I don't see anything dangerous in this file: Why should identifiers like
_Noreturn, _GL_UNUSED, _UNUSED_PARAMETER_, et
On 01/02/12 13:05, bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> _Noreturn is safe but I am more affraind by the fact that cpp run in
> traditionnal mode and could choke if snippet include C89/C99
> preprocessor directive.
I suppose that could be an issue in theory, but in practice it isn't:
all of the stuff you m
Le Monday 2 January 2012 19:06:46, Paul Eggert a écrit :
> On 01/02/12 07:46, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> > Unfortunatly gnulib add some stuff snippet like noreturn in config.h
> > that are not really safe from a fortran point of view.
>
> Could you explain the problem a bit more? I wasn't aware
>
Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I use regularly gnulib for configuring some fortran program.
>
> Therefore I include config.h in the top of my fortran file.
> Unfortunatly gnulib add some stuff snippet like noreturn in config.h
> that are not really safe from a fortran point of view.
How does the conf
On 01/02/12 07:46, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Unfortunatly gnulib add some stuff snippet like noreturn in config.h
> that are not really safe from a fortran point of view.
Could you explain the problem a bit more? I wasn't aware
that Fortran code used the identifier "_Noreturn".
I suppose you co
hi,
I use regularly gnulib for configuring some fortran program.
Therefore I include config.h in the top of my fortran file.
Unfortunatly gnulib add some stuff snippet like noreturn in config.h
that are not really safe from a fortran point of view.
Could be possible to protect these snippet if t
