Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 09 Jan 1997 09:57:33 -0700
From:      Warner Losh <imp@village.org>
To:        Chuck Robey <chuckr@glue.umd.edu>
Cc:        ports@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Niklas Hallqvist: archivers/hpack.non-usa.only 
Message-ID:  <E0viNnJ-0005A8-00@rover.village.org>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Jan 1997 00:34:52 EST." <Pine.OSF.3.95.970108222924.15523B-100000@modem.eng.umd.edu> 
References:  <Pine.OSF.3.95.970108222924.15523B-100000@modem.eng.umd.edu>  

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.OSF.3.95.970108222924.15523B-100000@modem.eng.umd.edu> Chuck Robey writes:
: David .... can't we just have an if exists to detect sys/param.h, then
: something like this in the makefile
: .if exists /usr/include/sys/param.h
: CFLAGS+=-DHAVE_PARAM_H
: .endif
: and in the source file
: #ifdef HAVE_PARAM_H
: #include <sys/param.h>
: #endif
: and then below do the #ifdefs based on BSD4_4

That's a good idea, but it isn't portible to all systems.  Most of
them don't have the concept of .if exists, or use a different syntax
for it.  I doubt that most software authors would find it acceptible,
so the reintegration of our patches into their source bases would
likely not happen in this case.

However, you could say #ifdef unix rather than #ifdef HAVE_PARAM_H and
be right enough of the time to convince authors of software packages
that they should do this.

BTW, is sys/param.h posix or not?  I don't see it in my book on posix
1990 (which likely explains why NT doesn't have one).

Deos anybody know of a system that defines "unix" or "__unix__" yet
doesn't have a sys/param.h?

Warner



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E0viNnJ-0005A8-00>