[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:08:35 +0200

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Dan Nicolaescu <address@hidden>
> Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:39:50 -0500
> Are you sure that including sys/ioctl.h unconditionally has some bad effects?

No, I'm not.  It's just good engineering practice.

> Is HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H currently defined?

Yes.  It's defined by one of the system headers included by config.h
(after config.in is edited by msdos/sed2v2.inp).

> If yes, then it seems that the only extra places to include sys/ioctl.h would 
> be
> keyboard.c and sound.c.

sound.c doesn't matter, since MSDOS does not define HAVE_SOUND (so we
can remove that part altogether from sound.c).

Are you planning on removing HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H altogether and not
testing for it in `configure'?  Because if HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H is to
stay, there could be no harm in undefining HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H on MSDOS:
it will be in on of the msdos/ Sed scripts, not visible in any of the
Emacs sources.  We will just replace a couple of "#ifndef MSDOS" with
"#ifdef HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H".

If you do want to remove HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H, then I guess it would be
okay to remove the MSDOS conditions from the places that include
sys/ioctl.h, and see if anything breaks.

reply via email to

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