> - my $re_prefix = qr/\* (?:Noteworthy|Major) change/;
> + my $re_prefix = qr/\* (?:Noteworthy|Major) change|Changes/;
What about
qr/(?:\* )?(?:Noteworthy c|Major c|C)(?i:hanges)/
?
Paolo
Hi Richard,
> Updated with feedback ...
The sources come from and are presumed to be shared with glibc, therefore
please mention this in the module description. Our convention is like this:
Maintainer:
Richard W.M. Jones, glibc
And, to make comparisons between glibc sources and gnulib sourc
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This version also preserves the glibc locking code, albeit as empty
> macros, so that the code more closely follows what was originally in
> glibc.
Good.
> +/* Locks are not yet implemented in gnulib. These macros allow us to
> + * preserve the ones which were in glib
Hi,
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This patch adds a 'random' module which implements:
>
> - random
> - srandom
> - initstate
> - setstate
This is welcome!
> and replaces:
>
> - rand
> - srand
> - RAND_MAX
It shouldn't do that. The random/srandom/initstate/setstate and
rand/srand/R
Hi Bruce,
> I think that there lies madness. Is the duration that someone is trying to
> express necessarily starting from now? The primary intent was for stuff
> like:
>
> timeout --duration='' some-command
>
> which is, indeed, meaning "from now". So, if this were to somehow b
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Unfortunately, this compiler and the IBM compiler on aix4.3.3 and aix6.1.0
> (but
> strangely, not 5.1, 5.2 or 5.3) have another peculiar behaviour which breaks
> on
> some headers when include_next.m4 determines that #include_next doesn't work.
>
> $ echo '#include '
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yes, but it seems that --coverage is passed to the command line to link
> applications with CFLAGS:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/libidn/src master$ rm idn
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/src/libidn/src master$ make CFLAGS="-g --coverage"
> make all-am
> make[1]:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
>> Hi Ludovic. Thanks, I pushed this patch. Adding anything to LDFLAGS
>> doesn't seem to be required though?
>
> According to the doc (info "(gcc)Debugging Options") it is required.
> See also this example (with GCC 4.2.4):
>
> $ cat > t.c < int m
Hi Simon,
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Ludovic. Thanks, I pushed this patch. Adding anything to LDFLAGS
> doesn't seem to be required though?
According to the doc (info "(gcc)Debugging Options") it is required.
See also this example (with GCC 4.2.4):
$ cat > t.c < Btw, i
ludo-mXXj517/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ludovic Courtès) writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> +COVERAGE_CCOPTS ?= "-g -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage"
>
> Looks to me that `--coverage' is more appropriate as it adds all `-f'
> options that are needed, so it's potentially
Hi Simon,
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> +COVERAGE_CCOPTS ?= "-g -fprofile-arcs -ftest-coverage"
Looks to me that `--coverage' is more appropriate as it adds all `-f'
options that are needed, so it's potentially more "future-proof".
Also, LDFLAGS must be modified to do either `-l
11 matches
Mail list logo
