This bug report was migrated from our old Bugzilla tracker.

Reported in version: 1.2.9
Reported for operating system, platform: Linux, x86

Comments on the original bug report:

On 2007-12-21 04:01:24 +0000, Hans de Goede wrote:

While building a package for Fedora today I got lots and lots of these warnings
during the build:
/usr/include/SDL/SDL_config-i386.h:67:1: warning: "HAVE_STDLIB_H" redefined

In general it is considered bad to have HAVE_FOO autoconf defines in public headers as they might conflict with defines from config.h from the package being build.

On 2007-12-29 14:05:16 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:

I'll have to address this post SDL 1.2.13, since this is a fairly central part of the build process right now.

On 2009-09-13 16:33:27 +0000, Ryan C. Gordon wrote:

Tagging this bug with "target-1.2.14" so we can try to resolve it for SDL 1.2.14.

Please note that we may choose to resolve it as WONTFIX. This tag is largely so we have a comprehensive wishlist of bugs to examine for 1.2.14 (and so we can close bugs that we'll never fix, rather than have them live forever in Bugzilla).

--ryan.

On 2009-09-21 00:52:53 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:

Do you have any suggestions on the recommended way to fix this? I could wrap each of those defines with ifndef, but that seems like kind of a hack.

On 2009-09-21 01:06:54 +0000, Hans de Goede wrote:

One of the ways to fix this, and IMHO the best, is to split SDL_config.h.in into
2 files a classic autoconf.h.in, which only gets used during build and an SDL_config.h.in, which also gets installed under /usr/include

As many defines as possible should go to the autoconf.h.in, leaving only those
needed by the public headers in SDL_config.h.in (and those should all be SDL_
prefixed).

An even better option would be if the public headers could be made to just not
depend on any foo.h.in at all, this also saves some headaches on multilib systems.

On 2009-09-21 01:47:30 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:

I'm nervous about making a change of that magnitude and getting it right. Would you be willing to take a crack at it?

On 2009-09-21 03:34:34 +0000, Hans de Goede wrote:

Erm,

I'm not that good with autofoo myself I must admit. I guess this is best left
unresolved for 1.2.14, would be very nice to get this fixed in the 1.3 branch though.

On 2009-09-21 04:20:30 +0000, Sam Lantinga wrote:

Okay, sounds good. Feel free to take a poke at it for 1.3 if you like.

Thanks!