Eric Blake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 3/1/2008 1:36 PM:
| On further investigation, I think this is a true bug in newlib's stdio,
| and not in your code.
Newlib has two bugs - first, fflush is failing to discard ungetc data
when
changing th
Bruno Haible wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
For situations like this, gnulib usually "overloads" the system provided
function, so that it has the POSIX specified prototype and behaves like
POSIX says. This allows programmers to write code for POSIX systems, without
#ifdefs, and it still compiles
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Btw, how do you need to write code such that gcc uses the SSE3 instructions?
You mean auto-vectorization, as opposed to explicitly using the
mmintrin.h or __builtin_foo APIs? I think you need to specify a -march=
that names an architecture that has sse3 (or just -msse3, but
Eric Blake wrote:
> Along the lines of detecting compiler capabilities, would it be worth a
> 'builtin_expect' module that provides a __builtin_expect in config.h for
> compilers that don't provide it?
If you find it worth, please add it. I won't probably use it, because the
amount of speedup one
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> > 2) What is the definition of S_ISUID, S_ISGID, S_IREAD, S_IRUSR, S_IRGRP,
> > S_IROTH,
> > S_IWRITE, S_IWUSR, S_IWGRP, S_IWOTH, S_IEXEC, S_IXUSR, S_IXGRP, S_IXOTH,
> > S_IRWXU,
> > S_IRWXG, S_IRWXO, S_IXUGO on your system?
>
> **
> SYS$COMM
Eric Blake wrote:
> +2008-03-01 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> +
> + New module 'memchr2'.
> + * modules/memchr2: New file.
> + * modules/memchr2-tests: Likewise.
> + * lib/memchr2.h: Likewise.
> + * lib/memchr2.c: Likewise, based on memchr.c.
Wondering why you used 'uintma
Bruno Haible wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
In lib/sys_stat.in :
The VMS DECC compiler needs to test the undefined macros with !defined.
What do you mean by this?
There is a bug where in some cases it does not work, particularly if
more than one undefined macro is present on an #if direct
Bruno Haible wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
All versions of the above C compilers define the __DECC and __VMS macros.
...
The __ALLOCA is a compiler built in, so it is specific to the compiler
and not to the version of the operating system.
...
I am doing the build with the compiler that iden
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Simon Josefsson on 3/3/2008 9:07 AM:
|> I like the idea. I would also like to see the assert module use it, if
the
|> platform's assert() lacks __func__ information as required by C99/POSIX
2001.
|
| How can that be implemented? The cur
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello John,
* John E. Malmberg wrote on Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 07:01:46AM CET:
In tests/testsuite :
VMS can not deal with having a file/directory named testname and
testname.dir in the same directory.
This is because all directories are named .dir, and to be more POSI
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> Turning on strict POSIX compliance makes it hard to get ported code
> working because it globally changes the behavior of most of the header
> files.
The header files on other systems behave similarly. Therefore gnulib does
not turn on flags like _POSIX_SOURCE globally.
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> All versions of the above C compilers define the __DECC and __VMS macros.
> ...
> The __ALLOCA is a compiler built in, so it is specific to the compiler
> and not to the version of the operating system.
> ...
> I am doing the build with the compiler that identifies it sel
Jim Meyering wrote:
> However if you present your measurements to the gcc developers,
> they may even address the root cause.
Done. Let's see.
Bruno
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ok to push?
3 nits:
> +A small function is:
> +
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> +#include
> +...
> +printf ("%s: something happened\n", __func__);
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] smallexample
I don't see a function here. Did you mean "A small example is:" ?
> + AH_VERBATIM(__FUNC__, [
> +#
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> As far as I can infer, there is no point in testing
> for anything other than __func__ since all platforms that support other
> symbols also support __func__?
>
> If we find a platform which doesn't have __func__, but have __FUNCTION__
> or something else, we can map the l
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> If there are other pre-C99 compilers that use other ways of printing the
>> function name, I suppose the module could be extended with those.
>
> According to boost/current_function.hpp, it appears that
> - GNU C is not the onl
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes:
>
>> The __func__ module will add the block above to config.h, to make sure
>> that __func__ is usable.
>>
>> If there are other pre-C99 compilers that use other ways of printing the
>> function name, I suppose the m
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I was unsure where to document this, it isn't either a function or
>> header file, strictly speaking.
>
> I would put its documentation in chapter "Particular modules".
Thanks.
>> AH_VERBATIM(__FUNC__, [
>> #if __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L
>
> Tests of
Bruno Haible wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
In src/names.c
The declarations for getgrnam and getpwnam interfere with the ones in
the system supplied headers.
--- /src_root/tar-1.19/src/names.c Sun Aug 12 02:46:25 2007
+++ src/names.c Mon Dec 17 19:53:01 2007
@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
/* Use
Bruno Haible wrote:
John E. Malmberg wrote:
In lib/alloca.in.h :
VMS needs a definition for the built-in __ALLOCA when using the DECC
compiler.
I committed your change with modifications:
- This definition was at the wrong place. You put it in the middle of a
declaration.
- The style in t
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering asked:
>> > The compilation of these files with -g -O2 and newer gcc releases takes
>> > an awful lot of time (5 minutes or so). Is there some way to make gcc work
>> > faster, without decreasing the runtime speed too much?
>>
>> Wow. What ver
Jim Meyering asked:
> > The compilation of these files with -g -O2 and newer gcc releases takes
> > an awful lot of time (5 minutes or so). Is there some way to make gcc work
> > faster, without decreasing the runtime speed too much?
>
> Wow. What version of gcc, and what type of CPU?
CPU: AMD-K
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> In lib/sys_stat.in :
>
> The VMS DECC compiler needs to test the undefined macros with !defined.
What do you mean by this?
1) What is the result of preprocessing (cc -E) code like this?
=== foo.c ===
#ifndef fooXYZZY
int dummy1;
#endif
#if !fooXYZZY
int
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> In src/names.c
>
> The declarations for getgrnam and getpwnam interfere with the ones in
> the system supplied headers.
> --- /src_root/tar-1.19/src/names.c Sun Aug 12 02:46:25 2007
> +++ src/names.c Mon Dec 17 19:53:01 2007
> @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
>
> /* User and g
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> In lib/alloca.in.h :
>
> VMS needs a definition for the built-in __ALLOCA when using the DECC
> compiler.
> --- /src_root/tar-1.19/lib/alloca.in.h Wed Oct 3 12:11:13 2007
> +++ lib/alloca.in.h Sun Mar 2 23:07:07 2008
> @@ -47,7 +47,11 @@
> # ifdef __cplusplus
John E. Malmberg wrote:
> In lib/getopt.c :
>
> Remove the old VMS specific code as it now breaks building on VMS.
I applied it, with this ChangeLog entry. The "tiny change" marker means that
we don't need a copyright assignment for this change.
2008-03-03 John E. Malmberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
>> Sure. Please send a patch.
>> SHA224, too, I suppose?
>> I have a preference for using enum symbols, if that works for you.
>>
>> enum { SHA512_DIGEST_SIZE = 64 };
>
> Sure. See below. I was unsure whether to put both declarations in the
> same e
27 matches
Mail list logo
