This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: Another HP-UX IA64 Build patch
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- To: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 13:32:36 -0400
- Subject: Re: Another HP-UX IA64 Build patch
- References: <200505051714.KAA17413@hpsje.cup.hp.com>
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 10:14:37AM -0700, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> Here is the second of my IA64 HP-UX build patches. This one involves
> the declaration of basename() in include/libiberty.h. What do people
> think about using the prototype version whenever we are compiling with
> GCC?
>
> I did that rather than checking for HP-UX because some HP-UX systems
> (old PA ones) cannot handle the prototype but it seems like GCC should
> always be able to deal with it and it is when using GCC that "-Wall
> -Werror" will be set so I thought it might be better to check for GCC
> rather than HP-UX. Does this seem reasonable to people? Maybe we could
> remove some of the OS checks if we checked for GCC instead.
>
> Tested on IA64 HP-UX.
This is wrong. If your system headers have a conflicting prototype,
you will lose, regardless of what compiler you're using.
Do you really not have a prototype for basename?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC