Paul Eggert writes:
> On 03/29/2012 02:44 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> I think gnulib should
>> 1) not assume that the function is declared,
>> 2) have a deprecated module 'gets' that declares this function only if
>> the declaration is missing.
>
> How about if gnulib drops support for ge
On 03/29/2012 02:44 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I think gnulib should
> 1) not assume that the function is declared,
> 2) have a deprecated module 'gets' that declares this function only if
> the declaration is missing.
How about if gnulib drops support for gets instead?
That would be simpl
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> gnulib (CC'd) says it's assuming 'gets'
> is declared. Can you see why this isn't the case for you?
Newer glibcs don't declare gets() any more. The glibc ChangeLog has this:
2012-01-12 Marek Polacek
* libio/bits/stdio2.h: Do not define gets for ISO C11, ISO C++1
2012/3/29 Pádraig Brady :
> This is the bit triggering from gnulib (CC'd) says it's assuming 'gets'
> is declared. Can you see why this isn't the case for you?
>
Sure, but how? :-)
--
chs,
On 03/28/2012 09:22 PM, Christer Solskogen wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've created my "own" cross compiler for powerpc (gcc, binutils and eglibc)
> and
> I'm having trouble cross compiling coreutils with that compiler. I do not
> have
> any
> trouble compiling both binutils, eglibc and bash with the sa