On 5 Apr 2007, at 17:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
One dumb question:
Does the Tru64 compiler define __GNUC__, or some other similar symbol?
No, it doesn't.
For the case of overriding standard headers I am thinking that this
concern might be overdone. If someone installs a gnulib-generated
heade
Paul Eggert wrote:
> How about this instead? It seems like a more-complete check.
>
>int check_WINT: (((wint_t) -1 < 0
> ? WINT_MIN + WINT_MAX - 1 < 0
> : WINT_MIN == 0 && WINT_MAX == (wint_t) -1)
> ? 1 : -1);
The checks in the au
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 18:30:06 -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>However, he also raised the question as to whether "%010f" and "%010a" are
>supposed to output " inf" (glibc does this) or "000inf" (FreeBSD
>does this). Personally, I think that FreeBSD has a bug in this regard,
C99+TC1+TC2: 7.19.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 3/14/2007 7:16 AM:
Revisiting this thread with a new question, and adding bug-gnulib to cc...
>
> When using %a and %A, is it worth tightening the specification to require
> the leading hex digit be smaller than FLT_RADIX
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> According to Paul Eggert on 4/5/2007 10:07 AM:
>>> - int check_WINT: WINT_MIN <= 0 && 0 < WINT_MAX ? 1 : -1;
>>> + int check_WINT: WINT_MIN <= (wint_t) 0 && (wint_t) 0 < WINT_MAX ? 1 : -1;
> It shows two bugs - first, that WINT_MIN was not 0; and second,
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So I gather that `fold', `cut', and `paste' stand no chance of ending up
> listed in make-stds.texi?
I'm not the one making that decision, but I suspect the probability is
low, yes, unless there's a stronger case than I've heard so far.
> I sense a m
Eric Blake wrote:
> That's now three reasons why I think FreeBSD's behavior is wrong.
OK, let's summarize (in case you want to bring it to the Austin group):
Arguments in favour of " nan", " inf":
- For NaN, there is no indication of a sign or base; for Inf, there is
no indicat
Ralf Wildenhues asked:
> So, how portable are these tools?
If you are interested in a reliable answer soon, you can write tests for
these tools that check the command line options and behaviours that you
are interested in. Commit them to gnulib, and we'll do the portability
testing for you.
For r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Paul Eggert on 4/5/2007 10:07 AM:
>> - int check_WINT: WINT_MIN <= 0 && 0 < WINT_MAX ? 1 : -1;
>> + int check_WINT: WINT_MIN <= (wint_t) 0 && (wint_t) 0 < WINT_MAX ? 1 : -1;
>
> This fix looks suspicious to me, as I think it might cause
* Paul Eggert wrote on Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:19:16PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > fold, split, join, cut, paste
>
> 'split' and 'join' are traditional and portable. 'fold', 'cut', and
> 'paste' are relative newcomers, as they were not part of Unix Version 7
> and
One dumb question:
Does the Tru64 compiler define __GNUC__, or some other similar symbol?
Also, Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you were to change the gnulib stdio.h to use #include_next instead of
> #include, would that help matters any? Maybe we need to teach the
> absolute-header
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> join perhaps; it's quite stable so long as you run it in the C locale
>> and stick to the old features. cut I'm not so sure about; it's kind
>> of persnickety.
>
> What exactly does the word "persnickety" mean here, and in which way is
> cut that way
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> - int check_PTRDIFF: PTRDIFF_MIN < 0 && 0 < PTRDIFF_MAX ? 1 : -1;
> - int check_SIG_ATOMIC: SIG_ATOMIC_MIN <= 0 && 0 < SIG_ATOMIC_MAX ? 1 : -1;
> - int check_SIZE: 0 < SIZE_MAX ? 1 : -1;
> - int check_WCHAR: WCHAR_MIN <= 0 && 0 < WCHAR_MAX ? 1 : -1;
> -
Bruno Haible wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
Lately, many packages ship both .gz and .bz2 tarballs, although automake still
defaults to .gz only. Is it time to more heavily encourage .bz2?
bzip2 is about 6 times slower upon decompression:
$ time gunzip -c < coreutils-6.9.tar.gz > /dev/null
real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 4/5/2007 5:22 AM:
> Albert Chin wrote:
>> There is a -nodtk option to the commercial C
>> compiler which reverts to the system cc but that would need to be done
>> for _most_ gnulib-using programs, something that is not des
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 4/5/2007 5:14 AM:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> I find glibc's output more sensible, since strtod will accept it, while
>>> strtod will not grok "000inf". But FreeBSD appears to be closer to
>>> the POSIX wording, I won't cou
Eric Blake wrote:
> > I find glibc's output more sensible, since strtod will accept it, while
> > strtod will not grok "000inf". But FreeBSD appears to be closer to
> > the POSIX wording, I won't count it as a FreeBSD bug.
>
> I would, though. POSIX allows "inf" vs. "infinity", but unless %01
Albert Chin wrote:
> There is a -nodtk option to the commercial C
> compiler which reverts to the system cc but that would need to be done
> for _most_ gnulib-using programs, something that is not desirable.
Why is this not desirable? "-nodtk" has already been found to be the
preferred workaround
18 matches
Mail list logo
