Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Under the current approach, it's the caller's responsibility to arrange
> for a program_name variable that works, either by using the progname
> module, or by rolling their own program_name variable.
So gnulib shouldn't be used for libraries (or at least
Forwarding this to PGI support. This thread is archived at
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.gnulib.bugs/5059 .
* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 10:35:24PM CET:
> Claudio Fontana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> pgcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -g -c regex.c
> >> PGC-F-024
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is pgcc 6.0-8 64-bit target on x86-64 Linux, but as indicated
> above, the issue is present in 5.2-1 as well.
Thanks for checking that. Can you please run the following
program on that platform and send us the output? If it outputs
"preprocesso
Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Under the current approach, it's the caller's responsibility to arrange
>> for a program_name variable that works, either by using the progname
>> module, or by rolling their own program_name variable.
>
> So gnul
If we put a similar declaration in error.c, it would cause two
different definitions of program_name, and some non-Unix linkers
reject this. (The C Standard allows them to reject it.)
Is it a problem in practice, ie, what are these non-Unix linkers?
How about defining it in error.c w
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 02:03:27PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Because the current convention is to put this declaration in the main
> program, at the top level:
>
> char *program_name;
>
> Hence the main program has allocated program_name, and has arranged
> for it to be initialized to null. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Berry) writes:
> Is it a problem in practice, ie, what are these non-Unix linkers?
I've run into it on IBM mainframe platforms. You can run into it even
with GCC, if you use -fno-common. Googling a bit reveals that libtool
1.5 uses -fno-common on Mac OS X (why, I don't k
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If we put a similar declaration in
> error.c, it would cause two different definitions of program_name, and
> some non-Unix linkers reject this. (The C Standard allows them to
> reject it.)
Sorry, I thought Unix linkers actually did reject it, which was
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 1/5/2006 4:06 PM:
>
>>Is it a problem in practice, ie, what are these non-Unix linkers?
>
>
> I've run into it on IBM mainframe platforms. You can run into it even
> with GCC, if you use -fno-common. Googling a bit reve
