From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Apr 21 19:49:09 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id TAA29906
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:49:09 -0700
Received: from physics.su.oz.au (dawes@physics.su.OZ.AU [129.78.129.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id TAA29900
          for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 21 Apr 1995 19:49:00 -0700
Received: by physics.su.oz.au id AA17193
  (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4 for hackers@FreeBSD.org); Sat, 22 Apr 1995 12:48:43 +1000
From: David Dawes <dawes@physics.usyd.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199504220248.AA17193@physics.su.oz.au>
Subject: Re: wchar_t definition...
To: luigi@labinfo.iet.unipi.it (Luigi Rizzo)
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 1995 12:48:42 +1000 (EST)
Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199504211445.QAA21595@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> from "Luigi Rizzo" at Apr 21, 95 04:45:34 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1268      
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>This was on snap950322 with XFree86-3.1.
>
>While compiling the stock xdvi (xdvk-1.18f) I got the following errors:
>
>In file included from xdvi.h:22,
>                 from config.h:43,
>                 from xdvi.c:86:
>/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xlib.h:74: conflicting types for `wchar_t'
>/usr/include/stdlib.h:50: previous declaration of `wchar_t'

Thas issue has come up before.  As I said then, wchar_t is only defined
in Xlib.h when X_WCHAR is defined (when X_WCHAR isn't defined, <stddef.h>
is included to get the wchar_t definition), and that will only get defined
if X_NOT_STDC_ENV is defined.  This is not defined by default for
FreeBSD, so find out where it is getting defined and fix that.

>In file included from xdvi.h:24,
>                 from config.h:43,
>                 from xdvi.c:86:
>/usr/X11R6/include/X11/Xos.h:107: conflicting types for `sys_errlist'
>/usr/include/stdio.h:244: previous declaration of `sys_errlist'
>*** Error code 1

This is also because X_NOT_STDC_ENV is somehow incorrectly being defined.

>and so on. Apart the obvious thing (fix the application), should we fix
>the (XFree) header files so that they are consistent with ours ?

I don't believe that there is anything to fix in this respect in the
X11R6 headers.

David