Nix <nix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Since systems that omit strtoumax() will likely omit strtomax() too, > and likewise for strtoull() and strtoll(), we also adjust the > compatibility #defines from NO_STRTOUMAX to NO_STRTOMAX and from > NO_STRTOULL to NO_STRTOLL, and have them cover both the signed and > unsigned functions. What would happen to people who know their systems lack strtoumax and have happily using NO_STRTOUMAX in their config.mak already? Do their build suddenly start breaking after this patch is applied and they all have to adjust to the new name? Even though "no strtoumax() likely means no strtoimax()" may be a good heuristics, I am not sure what we would gain by renaming these Makefile variables. Can't you get the same effect by making existing NO_STRTOUMAX imply not having strtoimax(), and if you did so, wouldn't it be much less likely that you would break existing people's build? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html