Jim Meyering wrote:
> If there is an EPIPE error, IMHO, close_stream must diagnose it.
Well, then here is an amended patch (just for coreutils: 0001 and 0002,
with a single ChangeLog entry) for the 'tee' program.
The idea behind the patch is as follows:
SIGPIPE is an optimization through which t
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008-08-31 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * lib/close-stream.c (close_stream): Ignore error EPIPE from fclose.
>
> --- lib/close-stream.c.orig 2008-08-31 17:18:56.0 +0200
> +++ lib/close-stream.c2008-08-31 17:14:12.0
Ondřej Vašík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Documenting in getdate.texi will be enough, because that file is
>> included by coreutils.texi. Thanks!
>
> Ok, here is amended version of the patch, first two (or less) digits are
> considered as hours, TZ correction limit set to +/
Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes:
>
>>
>> Thanks for ideas. I have pushed this.
>>
>>
>> +#if defined UINT64_MAX && defined UINT64_C
>
> Bruno's point was that UINT64_C is not usable in C++ programs. Checking
> UINT64_MAX is sufficient, so lose
Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes:
>
> Thanks for ideas. I have pushed this.
>
>
> +#if defined UINT64_MAX && defined UINT64_C
Bruno's point was that UINT64_C is not usable in C++ programs. Checking
UINT64_MAX is sufficient, so lose the &&.
> +/* Given an unsigned 64-bit argument X, r
Thanks for ideas. I have pushed this.
/Simon
>From 4316d00d707d97f660fd0432035780fc0d3f23eb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:53:09 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] bitrotate: Add 64-bit rotates.
Suggested by Bruce Korb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with id
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 9/2/2008 4:50 AM:
>>
>> OK to apply? Are there other files in lib or tests that need matching
>> modifications?
>
> Yes, please apply. 4 test files should be modified in sync:
>
> $ grep -rl 4000d tests/
> tests/test-snp
Eric Blake wrote:
> In looking at this further, it looks like line 4179 of vasnprintf.c should
> _not_ count precision as a prefix if prec_ourselves is nonzero.
Yes. Now that you say it, it's obvious that the code in line 4179 should be
in sync with the code in line 4077.
> Without the patch to v
