From octave-maintainers-request at bevo dot che dot wisc dot edu Fri Jan 23 19:00:54 2004 Subject: Re: DLD compilation errors From: "John W. Eaton" To: octave-maintainers mailing list Cc: gdg at zplane dot com, help-octave Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:59:58 -0600 On 23-Jan-2004, Glenn Golden wrote: | Aha. It's inside a conditional for HAVE_CONFIG_H: | | | #ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H | #include | #endif | | which I assumed was being #defined by mkoctfile... but I guess not, | because when I explicitly define it, it compiles ok. [I'm moving this to the octave-maintainers mailing list and have set the Reply-To: header so that followup messages should go there. --jwe] This brings up some things that should have been fixed a long time ago. First, we should separate the parts of Octave's config.h file that are specific to Octave and might be needed by users writing .oct files and put them in a separate file (not called config.h). This new file would be installed and users could include it if needed (oct.h would include it). All the rest of the configuration information needed to build Octave could go in config.h, which need not be installed. If users writing .oct files need similar system-specific information, they would need to have their own configure scripts. Second, it would be great if we could eliminate the need for TWO_BYTE_INT FOUR_BYTE_INT EIGHT_BYTE_INT in liboctave/data-conv.h and SIZEOF_INT SIZEOF_LONG SIZEOF_LONG_LONG SIZEOF_SHORT in config.h. I think it would be best to have this information decided at run time (that would help with cross-compiling). Third, oct.h needs updating to include all the relevant headers. Or, better yet, we need to finally decide on what interface to make public and export to users and what should be private, and only put the public interface in oct.h (and maybe it should be renamed octave.h). Comments? Would someone like to volunteer to help with these changes? Thanks, jwe