https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
Nick Clifton changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||nickc at redhat dot com
--- Comment #6
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
--- Comment #5 from Bruno Haible ---
I wrote:
> No, there are 3 different implementations: The mingw one, the gnulib one,
> and the glibc one.
Correction: There are 4 different implementations: The binutils one (bucomm.c),
the mingw one, the
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
--- Comment #4 from Bruno Haible ---
(In reply to Sterpu Mihai from comment #2)
> The issue is that, from what I see, we now have 2 different implementations.
No, there are 3 different implementations: The mingw one, the gnulib one, and
the g
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
--- Comment #3 from Bruno Haible ---
> Given the discussion in PR30958, wouldn't it be better to sync with newer
> gnulib?
Yes. As indicated in my reply
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2023-10/msg00058.html ,
this problem on min
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
Sterpu Mihai changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eggert at cs dot ucla.edu
--
You are
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
--- Comment #2 from Sterpu Mihai ---
Hi Sam,
The issue is that, from what I see, we now have 2 different implementations.
This isn't an easy out of sync case.
One might even argue that glibc's implementation is the "outdated" one as it
leaks
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||bruno at clisp dot org,
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30969
Sam James changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://sourceware.org/bugz
