Re: Porting patch to VMS

[Steve Little]

Hi Paul,

On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Paul Eggert wrote:

> > 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.

Done, in patch-includes.diff

> > 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.

Ok, done, in patch-fseek.diff

> > 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.

Done, in xmalloc.c.diff.

Hope these are all ok. I've also attached a patch for config.h_vms, to add
a couple of extra #defines related to the new includes. See
config.h_vms.diff

Thanks,

Steve

xmalloc.c.diff
Description: Text document

config.h_vms.diff
Description: Text document

patch-includes.diff
Description: Text document

patch-fseek.diff
Description: Text document