[bug#59993] [PATCH 2/2] tests: Fix implicit function declaration errors

I'll separe this one in a dedicated patch and give it a more
detailed/specific explanation.

On Tue, Dec 13, 2022 at 10:02 PM Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 13, 2022, at 1:30 AM, Frederic Berat wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2022 at 9:19 PM Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > --- a/t/ax/depcomp.sh
> >> > +++ b/t/ax/depcomp.sh
> >> > @@ -243,6 +243,7 @@ cat > sub/subfoo.h <<'END'
> >> >   #include <stdio.h>
> >> >   extern int subfoo (void);
> >> >   END
> >> > +cp sub/subfoo.h sub/subfoo.save
> >> >
> >> >   cat > src/baz.c <<'END'
> >> >   #include "baz.h"
> >> > @@ -399,8 +400,7 @@ do_test ()
> >> >         && rewrite "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h echo 'choke me' \
> >> >         && not $MAKE \
> >> >         && delete "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h \
> >> > -      && edit "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.c -e 1d \
> >> > -      && edit "$srcdir"/foo.h -e 2d \
> >> > +      && mv  "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.save "$srcdir"/sub/subfoo.h \
> >> >         && make_ok \
> >> >         || r='not ok'
> >> >       result_ "$r" "$pfx dependency tracking works"
> >>
> >> These changes don't seem to have anything to do with the patch as
> >> described.  They should be submitted separately.
> >
> > Actually, that is related. The edit removes the "#include subfoo.h"
> > line from foo.h, because the subfoo.h file got overwritten earlier.
> > This subfoo.h is the one that had the function declaration in ("extern
> > int subfoo (void);" specifically).
> > Either you need the original header back, or you need to get the
> > declaration back another way. I felt this way was easier than trying
> > to insert a declaration without breaking the test.
>
> OK, I clearly don't understand what this test is doing, so I'm going to
> defer to someone else to review it.
>
> zw
>
>
>