Re: [AC21.5R21.4] etags and implicit tags
> I would prefer avoiding this, if possible, by defining VERSION
in the
> Makefile as appropriate.
That makes sense.
Good:-)
This is not entirely trivial, as VERSION is computed in our Makefile
as
version=＠version＠
and that of course is done by configure. But it shouldn't be too hard.
You could just change the call in the Makefile where etags is built by
adding -DVERSION=whatever. WOuldn't that be simple enough?
> >-# if PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
> >+# ifdef PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
>
> You changed this to quench a warning, as I understand. However, I do
> not get any, using gcc 4.1.2 with -pedantic and -Wall. What compiler do
> you use?
I suppose it's the -Wundef.
I see. In the cpp-4.1 manual I read:
* Identifiers that are not macros, which are all considered to be the
number zero. This allows you to write `#if MACRO' instead of
`#ifdef MACRO', if you know that MACRO, when defined, will always
have a nonzero value. Function-like macros used without their
function call parentheses are also treated as zero.
In some contexts this shortcut is undesirable. The `-Wundef'
option causes GCC to warn whenever it encounters an identifier
which is not a macro in an `#if'.
I have added something like this:
#ifndef PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP
# define PRINT_UNDOCUMENTED_OPTIONS_HELP FALSE
#endif
I suggest you add this to etags.c if you are in a hurry to release. I
should soon send out a new release with this change.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Patches mailing list
XEmacs-Patches(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-patches