On Tue, 2014-05-06 at 11:07 +0200, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Svante Signell, le Tue 06 May 2014 10:58:38 +0200, a écrit :
> > The patch for st_dev by Thomas Schwinge was not liked by Samuel
>
> Uh?
>
> I said “These should be fine, however.” and “a sed rule can't hurt even
> if there is no occurrence...”
>
> So just keep that precise part back as it was, no need for being clumsy.
>
> What I however said was:
>
> “Err, these seem to get applied to all systems, not just GNU/Hurd, isn't
> that a concern?”
>
> By that, I mean this:
>
> > +# Special treatment of EWOULDBLOCK for GNU/Hurd
> > +# /usr/include/bits/errno.h: #define EWOULDBLOCK EAGAIN
> > +egrep '^const EWOULDBLOCK = Errno(_EWOULDBLOCK)' ${OUT} | \
> > + sed -i.bak -e 's/_EWOULDBLOCK/_EAGAIN/' ${OUT}
> > +
This applies to all systems yes, how to modify?
> and that:
>
> > +# Special treatment of SYS_FCNTL for GNU/Hurd
> > +if ! grep '^const SYS_FCNTL' ${OUT} >/dev/null 2>&1; then
> > + echo "const SYS_FCNTL = 0" >> ${OUT}
> > +fi
And this applies to systems not defining FCNTL.
How many systems could possibly be affected?
> AIUI, the patch you propose does those changes for all systems, not just
> GNU/Hurd. That most probably will pose a problem.
And you wrote in your reply to the above: see e.g.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-04/msg00644.html
> These should be fine, however.
I asked for help with sed but have not obtained any yet, so what to do?
