Message-Id: <3.0.16.19980113112429.1c373728@hem1.passagen.se>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:24:32 -0500
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
From: Peter Palotas <blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se>
Subject: Re: getopt() and ANSI?
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Precedence: bulk

At 10.43 1998-01-13 +0200, you wrote:
>
>On Mon, 12 Jan 1998, Peter Palotas wrote:
>
>> (2)How would I make sure that they are ANSI? Is there some program out
>> there which can find out wether a program is ANSI or not? By the way, the
>> GNU `getopt' compiles fine with -ansi -pedantic, but this isn't bulletproof
>> I guess.
>
>-ansi -pedantic *is* the way to test this.  And I was wrong: GNU
>`getopt' seems indeed to be ANSI-compatible.

Well, only problem are two warnings... "Implicit declaration of strncmp"
and "Comparation between signed and unsigned"... The comparation probably
isn't much to do about, since I assume that it's okay on some systems, but
would you recommend adding "#include <string.h>" to the getopt.c file to
get rid of the first warning, or should I just leave it the way it is? (Do
any compilers produce errors instead of warnings for implicit declarations?)


>Yes, but you don't mention getopt.o twice on the link command line.
>You say something like this:
>
>	 gcc -o foo ... getopt.o libc.a
>
>The second instance of getopt.o lives inside libc.a, but the linker
>won't pull it from there since by the time it gets to the library,
>the symbol `_getopt' is already resolved by the code from getopt.o.
>So the linker doesn't have any reason to complain.

Is this a portable solution, i.e. does all linkers work this way?


-- Peter Palotas alias Blizzar -- blizzar AT hem1 DOT passagen DOT se --

*****************************************************
* A brief description of DJGPP:                     *
* NEVER BEFORE HAS SO FEW DONE SO MUCH FOR SO MANY! *
*****************************************************