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: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:08:35 +0200 Message-ID: <83eiagbbvw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83mxp5b3mk.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290244250 20015 80.91.229.12 (20 Nov 2010 09:10:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:10:50 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dan Nicolaescu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 20 10:10:45 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 1PJjT2-0000dv-On for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 10:10:44 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42327 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJjT1-0000zg-R8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 04:10:43 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=47112 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PJjSv-0000zY-Sr for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 04:10:39 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJjSu-0003Fb-Oc for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 04:10:37 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:47121) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PJjSt-0003FI-Fh; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 04:10:35 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LC600300ESURO00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:10:33 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.52.47]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LC6003MJETKIS50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 11:10:33 +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:132892 Archived-At: > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dan Nicolaescu > Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 02:39:50 -0500 > > Are you sure that including sys/ioctl.h unconditionally has some bad effects? No, I'm not. It's just good engineering practice. > Is HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H currently defined? Yes. It's defined by one of the system headers included by config.h (after config.in is edited by msdos/sed2v2.inp). > If yes, then it seems that the only extra places to include sys/ioctl.h would be > keyboard.c and sound.c. sound.c doesn't matter, since MSDOS does not define HAVE_SOUND (so we can remove that part altogether from sound.c). 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 stay, there could be no harm in undefining HAVE_SYS_IOCTL_H on MSDOS: it will be in on of the msdos/ Sed scripts, not visible in any of the Emacs sources. We will just replace a couple of "#ifndef MSDOS" with "#ifdef HAVE_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.