gpsd-dev
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [gpsd-dev] Bernd's CheckFunc Fix


From: Fred Wright
Subject: Re: [gpsd-dev] Bernd's CheckFunc Fix
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2017 00:47:04 -0800 (PST)

Oops - screwed up the original send address here.

On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Fred Wright wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > short question - which scons version are you using?
>
> In the Fedora 25 case:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> address@hidden ~]$ scons --version
> SCons by Steven Knight et al.:
>       script: v2.5.1.rel_2.5.1:3735:9dc6cee5c168[MODIFIED], 2016/11/03 
> 14:02:02, by bdbaddog on mongodog
>       engine: v2.5.1.rel_2.5.1:3735:9dc6cee5c168[MODIFIED], 2016/11/03 
> 14:02:02, by bdbaddog on mongodog
>       engine path: ['/usr/lib/scons/SCons']
> Copyright (c) 2001 - 2016 The SCons Foundation
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> The OSX version that I do most of my testing with is also 2.5.1:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> MacPro:~ fw$ scons --version
> SCons by Steven Knight et al.:
>       script: v2.5.1.rel_2.5.1:3735:9dc6cee5c168[MODIFIED], 2016/11/03 
> 14:02:02, by bdbaddog on mongodog
>       engine: v2.5.1.rel_2.5.1:3735:9dc6cee5c168[MODIFIED], 2016/11/03 
> 14:02:02, by bdbaddog on mongodog
>       engine path: 
> ['/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.7/lib/scons-2.5.1/SCons']
> Copyright (c) 2001 - 2016 The SCons Foundation
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'm pretty sure the SCons bug you identified is still present here, since
> I see the malconstructed test code in config.log.  What I don't see is how
> it turns into an error, even when the warning is enabled.
>
> Allthough I think it would be good to fix the bug in SCons, I don't think
> it makes sense to put a complete rewrite of the function in GPSD's
> SConstruct unless it's really necessary, and there's no simple workaround.
> Note that a *really* correct fix would need to be more elaborate anyway,
> since ideally one would have to be able to specify the complete signature
> of the test function in CheckFunc, rather than merely using "void" to make
> it non-K&R.
>
> Perhaps you could send me the config.log from your failing case.
>
> BCCing again in case it's helpful.  I'll stop if it's not.
>
> Fred Wright



reply via email to

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