[PATCH]: mbchar.h and iswcntrl

2006-07-27 Thread Yoann Vandoorselaere
Hi, mbchar.h make direct use of the iswcntrl function which is not available on some system. I made a patch using the same workaround as is done in mbswidth.c, although I'm not sure this is valid. Regards, -- Yoann Vandoorselaere | Responsable R&D / CTO | PreludeIDS Technologies Tel: +33 (0)8 7

[PATCH]: arpa/inet.h inclusion warning under FreeBSD 4.x

2006-07-27 Thread Yoann Vandoorselaere
Hi, Under FreeBSD 4.x, inclusion of arpa/inet.h without netinet/in.h being included first will result in the following warnings, due to struct in_addr not being declared: /usr/include/arpa/inet.h:89: warning: parameter has incomplete type /usr/include/arpa/inet.h:92: warning: parameter has incomp

stdint tweak

2006-07-27 Thread Bruno Haible
Hi Paul, You noticed some confusion about the _STDC_... macros. I'm committing this fix. 2006-07-27 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * m4/stdint.m4 (gl_STDINT_H): Define __STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS during the test. * lib/stdint_.h (INT*_C, UINT*_C) [C++]: Define these if

Re: [bug-gnulib] stdio-safer and tmpfile

2006-07-27 Thread Bruno Haible
Eric Blake wrote: > +#if ! HAVE_MKSTEMP > +int mkstemp (char *) > +#endif I added a semicolon here. Bruno

Re: rewritten inttypes module

2006-07-27 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert wrote: > C99 says macro definitions like this should be skipped if C++, unless > __STDC_FORMAT_MACROS is defined. You're right. I missed this footnote in the standard. > Also, the macro should be defined > only if the corresponding type exists (this is relevant only on weird, > perhap

Re: purpose of *-safer?

2006-07-27 Thread Jim Meyering
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> And wouldn't there be an easier workaround: At the beginning of main(), >>> use fcntl() to determine whether 0,1,2 are closed, and if so, replace >>> them with open("/dev/null") ? >> >> Possibly. And if we did, it would make more sense to open fd 0 as wr

Re: purpose of *-safer?

2006-07-27 Thread Paul Eggert
>> And wouldn't there be an easier workaround: At the beginning of main(), >> use fcntl() to determine whether 0,1,2 are closed, and if so, replace >> them with open("/dev/null") ? > > Possibly. And if we did, it would make more sense to open fd 0 as write > only and fd 1 as read only, to be more