On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "David M. Syzdek" <david.syzdek@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This adds NO_UINTMAX_T for ancient systems. If NO_UINTMAX_T is defined, then > > uintmax_t is defined as uint32_t. This adds a test to configure.ac for > > uintmax_t and adds a check to the Makefile for FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY. > > ... > > diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > > index 0d40f0e..bf6a6dc 100644 > > --- a/Makefile > > +++ b/Makefile > > @@ -931,6 +931,9 @@ endif > > ifdef NO_IPV6 > > BASIC_CFLAGS += -DNO_IPV6 > > endif > > +ifdef NO_UINTMAX_T > > + BASIC_CFLAGS += -Duintmax_t=uint32_t > > +endif > > I have a stupid question. > > Would it be a more appropriate improvement to do it like this: > > ifdef USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T > BASIC_CFLAGS += -Duintmax_t="$(USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T)" > endif > > and then add a section for FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY like this: > > ifeq ($(uname_R),4.9-SECURITY) > USE_THIS_AS_UINTMAX_T = uint32_t > endif > > That way, an oddball 64-bit machine can use uint64_t here if it wants to, > possibly including FreeBSD 4.9-SECURITY backported to 64-bit ;-). > Your suggestion provides more flexibility for other environments. I was making the assumption that 64-bit systems would define uintmax_t, however in retrospect that would be unwise. Would you like me to resubmit the patches with your modifications? -- An earthquake wiped out Etchisketchistan today. -- Onion TV -- 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
