From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dan Nicolaescu Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: on msdos Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:39 -0500 Message-ID: References: <83mxp5b3mk.fsf@gnu.org> <83eiagbbvw.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1290314453 11785 80.91.229.12 (21 Nov 2010 04:40:53 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 04:40:53 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Nov 21 05:40:48 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 1PK1jL-0002bl-Uq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 21 Nov 2010 05:40:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60120 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK1jL-0001xT-Fn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:47 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=52409 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PK1jG-0001xB-Im for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:43 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK1jF-0000KX-HA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:42 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:50553) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PK1jF-0000KT-EW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:41 -0500 Original-Received: from dann by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1PK1jD-00077e-Bz; Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:40:39 -0500 In-Reply-To: <83eiagbbvw.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Sat\, 20 Nov 2010 11\:08\:35 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) 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:132942 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: >> 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 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. > 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. I can't test that, so it would be great if you could.