[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GTK patches part 1
From: |
Jan D. |
Subject: |
Re: GTK patches part 1 |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Dec 2002 13:44:03 +0100 (MET) |
>
> (1) Some hunks didn't apply for some reason, though the failed hunks
> _did_ apply when I tried in diff-mode, so perhaps there's a
> character encoding issue. I've appended a patch generated with
> `cvs diff' that the patch program seems to be happy with.
I dont know why that happend, maybe a mailer issue. Thanks for
the fixed patch.
> (2) HAVE_GTK isn't defined in src/config.in, and I had problems getting
> autoheader to do so (the autoheader invocation in the top-level
> Makefile seems to not be correct, though maybe I screwed something
> up). I've also included this change in the patch at the end of
> this message.
I don't understand why HAVE_GTK needs to be in config.in. Can you
explain?
> (3) The `xg_win_to_widget' function in gtkutil.c contained intermixed
> declarations and statements, which is not legal C (I _think_ it's
> legal in C99, but most people are using older compilers).
Spoiled by GCC 3 and years of C++. I'll switch to GCC 2.95 for Emacs.
> (4) It looks like the user has to give the `--with-gtk' option to
> configure to enable GTK. I think using `--with-x-toolkit=gtk'
> would be more correct, at least from a user's perspective.
I just selected what other GTK programs seems to use. In theory GTK
can run on other platforms than X (not this port though), But I can switch
(or have both?) if thats desired.
Thanks,
Jan D.
- GTK patches part 1, Jan D., 2002/12/08
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Miles Bader, 2002/12/09
- Re: GTK patches part 1,
Jan D. <=
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Miles Bader, 2002/12/09
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Alan Shutko, 2002/12/09
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Jan D., 2002/12/09
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Miles Bader, 2002/12/09
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/10
- Re: GTK patches part 1, Jan D., 2002/12/09