-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Georg Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > that was also my thought, but I would prefer to investigate only once > the other things are properly solved so that any potential side > effects can be ruled out. > >> get a GDB backtrace of the first core dump you find, to see more >> details about it? > > I will try, but first I will have to build gdb (which might be a > challenge, we'll see..). > Since I would like to do so with a "clean" code, could you maybe > provide me with the "processed" (automake etc.) current sources?
I've run "make dist" using the very latest of gnulib and coreutils. Here is the result: http://meyering.net/coreutils-6.7-dirty.tar.bz2 Here's its SHA256 checksum: 928bfff5da8b37f205c01c3ae3c6851d3c3c51a95efcc95809dabe5327397fcb coreutils-6.7-dirty.tar.bz2 >>> This is C99 syntax I think which the IDO cc does not like. >> >> You need to apply the patch in src/c99-to-c89.diff if you have an old >> compiler that doesn't grok declarations after statements. > > why don't you integrate that for all compilers? It should not hold > any penalties for newer ones, does it? > I could imagine maintenance being easier without having any diffs > included. I have a strong preference for the newer syntax. True, there is a little maintenance work in keeping the patch up to date, but that is offset by the fact that the c99 code is cleaner and more maintainable. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFn8ud/dLerNMzy6ERArAKAKCwYc95IsYGQmVtJLHUZ5LkTglUxwCeJcaL RubZW25+2H+pFhhd0wMN0L8= =Oc0V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
