Re: sunifdef instead of unifdef

[Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de>]

>> However, there are three main reasons why I pledge for sunifdef
>> compatibility:
>> 
>> 1. There is a project page and an inviting community
>> 2. There is HTML documentation
>> 3. They use autotools, which is distributor and administrator-friendly

autotools is, in some places, not developer friendly. A V=1 feature like 
the kernel's makefile system has would be beneficial, as well as the 
possibility to use PIC-compiled objects for PIE-executables (which 
currently throws an error on some distros, and requires workarounds, 
like the *-nolibtool files in pam_mount)

>> gcc -O2 -m64   -c -o unifdef.o unifdef.c
>> unifdef.c: In function 'main':
>> unifdef.c:129: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
>> function 'exit'
>> unifdef.c:157: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
>> function 'exit'
>> unifdef.c:180: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in
>> function 'exit'
>> gcc unifdef.o -o unifdef
>Patches appreciated - seems a simple #include is missing.

#include <stdlib.h>


	-`J'
-- 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/