On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:53:49PM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote: > Hello Daiki, > > 2016-05-26 15:09 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <u...@gnu.org>: > > Hello, > > > > Masanori Ogino <masanori.og...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> 2016-04-07 11:26 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <u...@gnu.org>: > >>> Masanori Ogino <masanori.og...@gmail.com> writes: > >>>> That is why I proposed to have a blacklist of "broken" implementations > >>>> as an option. > >>>> > >>>> AFAIK there have already been some blacklisting in autotools e.g. > >>>> checking the version of glibc to reject specific broken implementation > >>>> of a function. Thus, I think it's acceptable to use a blacklist. What > >>>> do you think about it? > >>> > >>> Yes, that sounds like a good idea. But I guess we then need to collect > >>> information about incompatible implementations. In this regard I'm > >>> actually not sure if the gettext-tools test coverage can be used as an > >>> indicator of compatibility. > >> > >> Indeed. > > > > I was wondering if there is anything could be done in the upcoming > > gettext release. Let's go back to the original explanation by Bruno: > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2006-03/msg00011.html > > where he states two things: > > > > 1. The purpose of the checks are excluding incompatible implementations, > > e.g., NetBSD (around 1.5?) and Solaris 7 > > > > 2. The __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION macro is a recent addition > > > > In that case, I guess we could bypass the symbol checks if > > __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION is defined, as long as broken > > implementations do not define it. > > > > How about the attached patch? > > It looks essentially good to me. You can remove the "if test > $gt_api_version -ge 3; then ... fi" part before where you modified too > if it is not used anywhere else, I guess. > > Thank you for working on!
I haven't tested it but the concept looks good to me too. Rich
