[bug#59993] [PATCH 2/2] tests: Fix implicit function declaration errors

[Zack Weinberg]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 1:30 AM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:19 PM Zack Weinberg <zack@owlfolio.org> wrote:
>> > --- a/t/ax/depcomp.sh
>> > +++ b/t/ax/depcomp.sh
>> > @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ cat > sub/subfoo.h <<'END'
>> >   #include <stdio.h>
>> >   extern int subfoo (void);
>> >   END
>> > +cp sub/subfoo.h sub/subfoo.save
>> >
>> >   cat > src/baz.c <<'END'
>> >   #include "baz.h"
>> > @@ -399,8 +400,7 @@ do_test ()
>> >         && rewrite "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h echo 'choke me' \
>> >         && not $MAKE \
>> >         && delete "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h \
>> > -      && edit "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.c -e 1d \
>> > -      && edit "$srcdir"/foo.h -e 2d \
>> > +      && mv  "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.save "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h \
>> >         && make_ok \
>> >         || r='not ok'
>> >       result_ "$r" "$pfx dependency tracking works"
>>
>> These changes don't seem to have anything to do with the patch as
>> described.  They should be submitted separately.
>
> Actually, that is related. The edit removes the "#include subfoo.h"
> line from foo.h, because the subfoo.h file got overwritten earlier.
> This subfoo.h is the one that had the function declaration in ("extern
> int subfoo (void);" specifically).
> Either you need the original header back, or you need to get the
> declaration back another way. I felt this way was easier than trying
> to insert a declaration without breaking the test.

OK, I clearly don't understand what this test is doing, so I'm going to
defer to someone else to review it.

zw