[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnulib] why no strchr or strrchr?

From: Oskar Liljeblad
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnulib] why no strchr or strrchr?
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 23:06:28 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040803i

On Monday, August 23, 2004 at 17:12, Bruno Haible wrote:
> > Why is autoscan telling me I should check for strchr before using it?
> autoconf apparently recommends tricks for maximum portability.
> "maximum" is more than nowadays reasonable.

Thank you. I have until now believed that autoconf and automake
(autoscan in particular) were perfect in this sense. But now I
understand there's little point in supporting anything < C89. It
is sad though that autoconf hasn't been updated to match the
compatibility assumptions of GCC and coreutils/gnulib. It's a
very messy world for those of us who want to make portable code
but hasn't been there from the beginning and has never had access
to those exotic systems...

> > It would also be useful to know what
> > gnulib modules are unnecessary (i.e. already implemented in C89
> > C libraries, and there's no known systems implementing it
> > incorrectly).
> In gnulib's MODULES.html look at "Support for systems lacking ANSI C 89".



Oskar Liljeblad (address@hidden)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]