Re: Question about POSIX regex support

Hello, Gallagher James wrote: > System specifics: Fedora Core 6, intel, gcc/++ 4.1.1. And what's the CPU? x86 or x86_64? 32-bit or 64-bit? > Problem 1: With a string "123abcdef" and a regex of "abc", after > calling regex(...) the resulting pmatch[] has values very different > than before. I

Question about POSIX regex support

Hi, System specifics: Fedora Core 6, intel, gcc/++ 4.1.1. I've been using gnulib for about two years primarily for its support of POSIX regular expressions. I noticed that after a recent update of gnulib, my regression tests for a regular expression class which uses regcomp(), regexec(), e

Re: problem with #include_next in /usr/include/idn-int.h

Paul Eggert wrote: > This includes ///opt/sun12/sunstudio12/prod/include/cc/time.h, which starts > off this way: > > #include_next > > which resolves to "./time.h" so we are in a loop. Thanks for explaining. This is effectively the same situation as with DEC cc (see

Re: problem with #include_next in /usr/include/idn-int.h

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks for your patch. But how does it solve the original problem? Only > because it enables include_next for compilers that support it, and Sun > Studio cc happens to be one of these compilers, right? That's the basic idea, yes. I had been planning to

Re: proposed changes to fchdir, iconv_open, locale, netinet_in, sys_select, sys_socket, sysexits

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > OK for me. Thanks. I didn't know that there were more compilers around which > support include_next. OK, thanks, I've committed them. I'll look into your other questions next.

Re: problem with #include_next in /usr/include/idn-int.h

> Thanks for your patch. But how does it solve the original problem? Only > because it enables include_next for compilers that support it, and Sun > Studio cc happens to be one of these compilers, right? I think, (but don't know for sure as I'm not on a Sun), that the problem is that Sun's used

Re: Bug in XSHd3 fdopendir

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Geoff Clare on 6/21/2007 2:42 AM: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, on 20 Jun 2007: >> @ page 797 line 27082 section fdopendir objection {ebb.fdopendir} >> >> Problem: >> >> Line 27013 of fdopendir forbids certain use of a fil

Re: problem with #include_next in /usr/include/idn-int.h

Hi Paul, Thanks for your patch. But how does it solve the original problem? Only because it enables include_next for compilers that support it, and Sun Studio cc happens to be one of these compilers, right? > That compiler supports #include_next but is not GCC. > It gets into recursive inclusion

Re: proposed changes to fchdir, iconv_open, locale, netinet_in, sys_select, sys_socket, sysexits

Hi Paul, > Here are the remaining changes to fix the #include_next problem for > Sun Studio 12 on GNU/Linux, for modules I don't maintain. OK to > install these, Bruno and Simon? OK for me. Thanks. I didn't know that there were more compilers around which support include_next. Bruno

Re: include_next missing

"Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > following lines in ChangeLog: > > * modules/fcntl (Depends-on): Depend on absolute-header, not > include_next. > * modules/float: Likewise. > * modules/inttypes: Likewise. > ... > > make me doubt whether this w

Re: include_next missing

"Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha escrit: > >> It seems more likely that there should be a new file named >> modules/include_next. If you create it as follows, at least >> coreutils builds once again: > > Yes, that's what I did to bootstrap tar a

Re: include_next missing

Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ha escrit: > It seems more likely that there should be a new file named > modules/include_next. If you create it as follows, at least > coreutils builds once again: Yes, that's what I did to bootstrap tar and cpio. Nevertheless, the following lines in ChangeLog:

Re: include_next missing

"Sergey Poznyakoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In modules directory, 17 files depend on include_next, but there is no > module by that name. Judging by the last ChangeLog entry, these > dependencies should have been changed to absolute-header. Am I right? Hi Sergey, It seems more likely that th

include_next missing

In modules directory, 17 files depend on include_next, but there is no module by that name. Judging by the last ChangeLog entry, these dependencies should have been changed to absolute-header. Am I right? Regards, Sergey