[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac |
Date: |
Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:52:31 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:41:32AM CET:
> * NightStrike wrote on Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:29:41AM CET:
> > Also, the macro AC_TYPE_SIGNAL comes up in the library checking
> > section, not the type checking section.
>
> Hmm, that looks like a bug...
Naa, scan_c_file wouldn't otherwise detect use of signal properly,
i.e., if we used
AN_IDENTIFIER([signal], [AC_TYPE_SIGNAL])
instead of
AN_FUNCTION([signal], [AC_TYPE_SIGNAL])
So yes, it appears in the wrong section, but that should be mostly
harmless.
Cheers,
Ralf
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, (continued)
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, NightStrike, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/13
- Re: AS_CASE vs case/esac,
Ralf Wildenhues <=