[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos

From: Dan Nicolaescu
Subject: Re: <sys/ioctl.h> on msdos
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:39 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux)

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> 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

Yes, given that we are including sys/ioctl.h in unconditionally in a
few places, it makes no sense to have configure test if it exists.

> 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.

I can't test that, so it would be great if you could.

reply via email to

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