W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-lib@w3.org > January to March 2006

Re: HAVE_APPKIT_H check inappropriate for Mac OS X

From: Roger Persson <roger.persson@post.utfors.se>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:22:25 +0100
Message-Id: <79d7ed001cebe5550bd0ef13f5f1fd4a@post.utfors.se>
To: www-lib@w3.org


2006-03-12 kl. 15.48 skrev Vic Bancroft:

> Roger Persson wrote:
>> Shortly, the WWW-library checks for appkit.h or appkit/appkit.h and  
>> wrongly include this header on Mac OS X in wwwsys.h. The bootstrap  
>> procedure worked back some years ago for me, but GCC's ability to  
>> include header files case insensitive (<appkit/appkit.h> <=>  
>> <AppKit/AppKit.h>) may be the reason for current failure. (?) I'm  
>> using gcc 4.0.1.
> Does there exist a current operating system version of these headers  
> all lowercase ?

No, it seems to be the compiler that ignore lower and upper case path  
names. This is the error message
95: error: stray '@' in program
In file included from  
                  from wwwsys.h:934,
                  from HTArray.c:12:

Note that the error is an effect of illegal Objective-C statements in  
plain C.

>> I would greatfully apprecate hints how to fix this, without relaying  
>> on changing configure.ac all the time.
> Does your diff look like this ?
>    $ cvs diff configure.ac
>    Index: configure.ac
>    ===================================================================
>    RCS file: /sources/public/libwww/configure.ac,v
>    retrieving revision 1.6
>    diff -r1.6 configure.ac
>    212c212
>    < AC_CHECK_HEADERS(appkit/appkit.h appkit.h)
>    ---
>     > AC_CHECK_HEADERS(AppKit/AppKit.h Appkit.h)

Yes, the lowercase check. But I can't find reasons to include this on  
Mac OS X (or any old NexStep system).

This is because I searched for function calls NS...(...), i.e the  
common prefix for appkit.h functions, but there isn't even a match.  
Typcial cases where I expected to find such calls would be HTUser.c,  
HTInet.c, etc., i.e. for quering user name, home path, etc. But BSD  
routines are used instead.

If there are no need for this header in the library, is there any need  
for this check then?

Removing this check would reduce configuring time.

Received on Monday, 13 March 2006 20:37:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:33:56 UTC