summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/lisp/emacs-lisp/checkdoc.el
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorGlenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>2012-07-12 16:53:41 -0400
committerGlenn Morris <rgm@gnu.org>2012-07-12 16:53:41 -0400
commita7208036ed514ead06b0e95bdcdb306adb91e0df (patch)
tree5a72dde48f139e93ba18a69d264691ed62aa5d03 /lisp/emacs-lisp/checkdoc.el
parent5a97981785998a7f1a9b8f0bc34e644e733ae5d2 (diff)
downloademacs-a7208036ed514ead06b0e95bdcdb306adb91e0df.tar.gz
emacs-a7208036ed514ead06b0e95bdcdb306adb91e0df.tar.bz2
emacs-a7208036ed514ead06b0e95bdcdb306adb91e0df.zip
Do not unconditionally define HAVE_XRMSETDATABASE on some systems
* src/s/gnu-linux.h, src/s/hpux10-20.h: Do not unconditionally define HAVE_XRMSETDATABASE. Maybe there was a time when this made sense, but in the current tree it is totally illogical. This is only used in xterm.c. If it is set we call XrmSetDatabase, if not we do something else. Configure tests for XrmSetDatabase and sets HAVE_XRMSETDATABASE accordingly. The only possibility that is not totally nonsensical is that the system does in fact have XrmSetDatabase but configure failed to find it (I don't see how this could happen though...); in which case we should fix the configure test rather than force the results. But this is not what the (vague) comments say was happending. The gnu-linux piece dates from 1995, the hpux one from 2000. https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/gnu.emacs.bug/H24wEM8Vp9A From: rainer@displaytech.com (Rainer Malzbender) Subject: Compiling emacs 20.4 on HP-UX 10.20 with gcc Date: 2000/02/01 Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.bug
Diffstat (limited to 'lisp/emacs-lisp/checkdoc.el')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions