Re: i18n broken on mingw cross compile

[Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl>]

Ludovic Courtès escreveu:
> Hi,
> 
> Han-Wen Nienhuys <hanwen@xs4all.nl> writes:
> 
>> adding the include to srfi-4.c, I still get
>>
>>  i686-mingw32-gcc -mms-bitfields -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -DSCM_IMPORT -I. -I.. -I/home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi -I.. -I/home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi/.. -I/home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/lib -I../lib -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -g -O2 -MT srfi-1.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/srfi-1.Tpo -c /home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi/srfi-1.c  -DDLL_EXPORT -DPIC -o .libs/srfi-1.o
> 
> Hmm, that's `srfi-1.c', not `srfi-4.c'.
> 
>> In file included from /home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/root/usr/include/sys/time.h:3,
>>                  from ../libguile/scmconfig.h:25,
>>                  from /home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi/../libguile/__scm.h:52,
>>                  from /home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi/../libguile.h:30,
>>                  from /home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi/../srfi/srfi-4.h:25,
>>                  from /home/lilydev/vc/gub/target/mingw/src/guile-localhost--home-lilydev-vc-guile-master/srfi/srfi-4.c:25:
>> ../lib/time.h:76: error: expected ';', ',' or ')' before '__timer'
>> ../lib/time.h:78: error: expected ';', ',' or ')' before '__timer'
>> make[3]: ** [srfi-4.lo] Erro 1
> 
> OK, I reviewed all C files and noticed that most of them did not include
> <config.h>, even those that clearly use `HAVE_' macros, or `inline',
> etc., which is clearly likely to cause problems.  The problems are even
> more likely to show up since we use Gnulib headers that most of the time
> rely on <config.h> macros.  Thus, I committed the attached patch to
> `master' and a similar one in 1.8.

As a review comment: is there a specific reason to do HAVE_CONFIG_H ?  In 
what case do we not HAVE_CONFIG_H ?

-- 
 Han-Wen Nienhuys - hanwen@xs4all.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanwen