Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #44125, comment 23


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 21, 2014, 9:45:40 PM (10 years ago)
Author:
jeremyhu (Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia)
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #44125, comment 23

    initial v1  
    1 Yeah, that's the problem with autoconf based approaches.  A better approach might be to check if stat64 was a weak symbol.  If it is week, then perhaps HAVE_STAT64 should be 0 and a HAVE_WEAK_STAT64 be defined to 1.  Code which builds based on the HAVE_STAT64 macro (which just calls it unconditionally) will work by falling back to the old codepath even though stat64 is conditionally available.  Similarly, it allows developers to conditionally use stat64 with runtime checks if they know what they're doing with HAVE_WEAK_STAT64.
     1Yeah, that's the problem with autoconf based approaches.  A better approach might be to check if stat64 is a weak symbol.  If it is weak, then perhaps HAVE_STAT64 could be 0 and we could have a new macro (HAVE_WEAK_STAT64) defined to 1.  Code which builds based on the HAVE_STAT64 macro (and just calls it unconditionally) will work by falling back to the old codepath even though stat64 is conditionally available.  Similarly, it allows developers to conditionally use stat64 with runtime checks if they know what they're doing with HAVE_WEAK_STAT64.
    22
    33But that's an autoconf bug, and autoconf is GPLv3, so I'm not going to touch it ;)