Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I don't have any other systems to test this on, so I can't say that it > won't cause problems somewhere. In practice, I think the chances of that > are rather low, but don't quote me on that! :-P This does smell like a right approach to me. If we can get it tested widely, that would be good. Thanks. > -- >8 -- > Subject: [PATCH] regex: fix up musl-libc builds > > --- > compat/regex/regex.c | 1 + > compat/regex/regex_internal.h | 1 - > 2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/compat/regex/regex.c b/compat/regex/regex.c > index f3e03a9eab..e6f4a5d177 100644 > --- a/compat/regex/regex.c > +++ b/compat/regex/regex.c > @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ > #undefs RE_DUP_MAX and sets it to the right value. */ > #include <limits.h> > #include <stdint.h> > +#include <stdlib.h> > > #ifdef GAWK > #undef alloca > diff --git a/compat/regex/regex_internal.h b/compat/regex/regex_internal.h > index 3ee8aae59d..0bad8b841e 100644 > --- a/compat/regex/regex_internal.h > +++ b/compat/regex/regex_internal.h > @@ -23,7 +23,6 @@ > #include <assert.h> > #include <ctype.h> > #include <stdio.h> > -#include <stdlib.h> > #include <string.h> > > #if defined HAVE_LANGINFO_H || defined HAVE_LANGINFO_CODESET || defined _LIBC
