From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15361 invoked by alias); 6 May 2005 01:57:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 14860 invoked from network); 6 May 2005 01:57:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 May 2005 01:57:09 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j461v9je026084 for ; Thu, 5 May 2005 21:57:09 -0400 Received: from post-office.corp.redhat.com (post-office.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.227]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j461v9O02929; Thu, 5 May 2005 21:57:09 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (dj.cipe.redhat.com [10.0.0.222]) by post-office.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j461v8v10409; Thu, 5 May 2005 21:57:08 -0400 Received: from greed.delorie.com (greed.delorie.com [127.0.0.1]) by greed.delorie.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j461v6wd017225; Thu, 5 May 2005 21:57:06 -0400 Received: (from dj@localhost) by greed.delorie.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id j461v1LR017215; Thu, 5 May 2005 21:57:01 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 01:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200505060157.j461v1LR017215@greed.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: wilson@specifixinc.com CC: sje@cup.hp.com, binutils@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <1115335760.8413.204.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> (message from James E Wilson on Thu, 05 May 2005 16:29:20 -0700) Subject: Re: Another HP-UX IA64 Build patch References: <200505052024.NAA17735@hpsje.cup.hp.com> <200505052042.j45Kg1Po027434@greed.delorie.com> <1115329225.8413.146.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> <200505052224.j45MOH22019801@greed.delorie.com> <1115335760.8413.204.camel@aretha.corp.specifixinc.com> X-SW-Source: 2005-05/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 > The problem here is that libiberty.h declares basename always, even if > you aren't using it. No, I'm proposing that we do NOT declare basename if the application didn't run the HAVE_DECL test. However, to prevent applications from using basename() without the HAVE_DECL test (the char * return problem), we then add a #define to effectively poison it. Thus, we need the HAVE_DECL test if we use basename(), but if we don't use basename() we don't need the HAVE_DECL test.