make-w32
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Re-order config.h.W32 to match the order of auto* generated config.h


From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: Re-order config.h.W32 to match the order of auto* generated config.h
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:28:21 +0200

> Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:04:39 +0100
> From: "J. Grant" <address@hidden>
> 
> This change makes it far clearer to see diff and see differences between
> configurations.
> 
> ChangeLog entry:
> 
> 2005-07-05  J. Grant <address@hidden>
> 
>      * config.h.W32: Re-order to more similarly match that of the
>        config.h generated by MSYS environment for MinGW build.

Please tell what real changes (i.e. macros that were unset in the
previous version or set differently) your patch includes.  As Paul
says, it is very hard to tell by just reading the diffs, since many
macros are moved around.

At first reading, the patch does include some real and possibly
questionable modifications.  For example, it seems like
HAVE_CASE_INSENSITIVE_FS is defined/undefined twice, and the
shell-related defines near the end of the file, viz.

>  /*
>   * If you have a shell that does not grok 'sh -c quoted-command-line'
>   * correctly, you need this setting. Please see below for specific
>   * shell support.
>   */
> -#undef BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL
> -#define BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL 1
> +/*#define BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL 1 */
>  
>  /*
>   * Define if you have the Cygnus "Cygwin" GNU Windows32 tool set.
>   * Do NOT define BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL if you define HAVE_CYGWIN_SHELL
>   */
> -#undef HAVE_CYGWIN_SHELL
> +/*#define HAVE_CYGWIN_SHELL*/
>  
>  /*
>   * Define if you have the MKS tool set or shell. Do NOT define
>   * BATCH_MODE_ONLY_SHELL if you define HAVE_MKS_SHELL
>   */
> -#undef HAVE_MKS_SHELL
> +/*#define HAVE_MKS_SHELL */

are modified to reflect some particular preferences on your system,
rather than the general settings a user must review and set according
to her installation particulars.

Any real change you suggest besides rearrangements must be judged
whether it could cause trouble for building Make with compilers other
than MinGW's port of GCC, and whether it is general enough to suit
other users.




reply via email to

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