From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: on msdos Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:45:11 +0200 Message-ID: <83ipzqa7vc.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mxp5b3mk.fsf@gnu.org> <83eiagbbvw.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290361671 18455 80.91.229.12 (21 Nov 2010 17:47:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 21 18:47:46 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PKE0r-0003VK-UQ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 18:47:42 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43730 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKE0q-0003nA-R9 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:47:40 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39433 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PKE0l-0003mY-6P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:47:36 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKE0j-0004pq-Is for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:47:34 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:43964) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PKE0i-0004pZ-1v; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 12:47:32 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LC800M00XCKPG00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:47:08 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.52.47]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LC800K8YXEI6XL0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 19:47:08 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:132970 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dan Nicolaescu > Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:39 -0500 > > > Are you planning on removing HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H altogether and not > > testing for it in `configure'? Because if HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H is to > > Yes, given that we are including sys/ioctl.h in unconditionally in a > few places, it makes no sense to have configure test if it exists. Then go ahead and remove HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H and the conditions to include sys/ioctl.h. > > If you do want to remove HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H, then I guess it would be > > okay to remove the MSDOS conditions from the places that include > > sys/ioctl.h, and see if anything breaks. > > I can't test that, so it would be great if you could. Sure, that's what I meant.