On 11/27/2013 04:14 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 11:08 PM, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
>> +#---
>> +# Exercise "rm -r /" without and with the --preserve-root option.
>> +# Also exercise the synonyms '///' and ''
On 11/27/2013 10:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> If you like to stay in an environment that is based on GCC only, you may use
> ignore_value(). If you however like to write portable code, you cannot expect
> something like ignore_value() to be available.
False. Gnulib already takes care of that
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 09:53 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >> The C standard does not document that '(void) write(...)' is required to
> >> avoid diagnostics, so I don't see the gcc behavior as a bug (yes, it's
> >> annoying behavior, but that doesn't make it incorrect behavior).
> >
>
On 11/27/2013 09:53 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>> The C standard does not document that '(void) write(...)' is required to
>> avoid diagnostics, so I don't see the gcc behavior as a bug (yes, it's
>> annoying behavior, but that doesn't make it incorrect behavior).
>
> Well, there is a more than 30
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 11/27/2013 09:30 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >>> Are you using "ignore_value" because of the gcc bug that ignores the
> >>> official
> >>> method to tell that the return code is ignored intentionally:
> >>>
> >>> (void) write(fd, buf, len);
>
> The C standard does not d
On 11/27/2013 09:30 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Are you using "ignore_value" because of the gcc bug that ignores the
>>> official
>>> method to tell that the return code is ignored intentionally:
>>>
>>> (void) write(fd, buf, len);
The C standard does not document that '(void) write(...)'
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 10:53 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Are you using "ignore_value" because of the gcc bug that ignores the
> > official
> > method to tell that the return code is ignored intentionally:
> >
> > (void) write(fd, buf, len);
>
> Right:
> http://git.sv.
On 11/27/2013 02:38 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:25:52AM +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> On 11/26/2013 10:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Hi Pádraig,
>>>
>>> Thanks for dealing with that. Your patch looks correct.
>>> Did you consider using inttostr in place of that first part
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 01:25:52AM +, Pádraig Brady wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 10:09 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > Hi Pádraig,
> >
> > Thanks for dealing with that. Your patch looks correct.
> > Did you consider using inttostr in place of that first part of
> > async_safe_error?
>
> Paul suggested
