Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 06:53:55 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
cc: DJGPP workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: Which header is __canonicalize_path supposed to be defined in?
In-Reply-To: <3D9732DD.A969FF6E@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020930065141.25050E-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 29 Sep 2002, Richard Dawe wrote:

> gcc ... -c realpath.c
> cc1.exe: warnings being treated as errors
> realpath.c: In function `realpath':
> realpath.c:30: warning: implicit declaration of function `__canonicalize_path'
> make.exe: *** [realpath.o] Error 1
> 
> I had a look for the declaration:
> 
> bash-2.04$ grep __canonicalize_path `find ../../../../include -name '*.h'`
> bash-2.04$ grep __canonicalize_path `find ../.. -name '*.h'`
> 
> Where should it be?

If it should be in a public header, it's probably unistd.h.

But I'm not sure we should put it into a public header, since it's an 
internal function.  So either an internal header (local to the directory 
where fixpath.c and realpath.c live) or even just a prototype in 
fixpath.c and realpath.c would be okay, I think.