Re: Porting patch to VMS

[Paul Eggert]

Steve Little <address@hidden> writes:

> 1) I get a bunch of compiler warnings about implicitly declared functions,
> which could be fixed by including a few more standard headers (mostly
> unistd.h, fcntl.h and stdlib.h) in a few places.

That'd be fine.

> 2) I was wondering why unlink() has been used as opposed to remove(),

It's faster.

> In the case of VMS, this can be solved by #including unistd.h

Sounds good.

> 3) On VMS, the linker is not case-sensitive (i know, it's nasty, but i
> didn't write it ;) so Fseek clashes with fseek from the C RTL at link
> time. For now I've #define'd it to _fseek in config.h_vms, which solves
> it, but I wondered why it's there at all? Is it simply for systems that
> don't have a real fseek function?

It's to insulate the rest of the code from the distinction between
fseek and fseeko.  We can change the name to something else.  f_seek,
say.

> 4) In a couple of places I see:
> #ifndef HAVE_MALLOC
> "you must run the autoconf test for a GNU libc compatible malloc"
> #endif
> 
> Would this not be better changed to #error "you must run..."?

These days, yes.  The code was written that way to port to K&R compilers
that lacked #error.  Please put this stuff into a separate patch, though,
as it doesn't matter with respect to VMS.