-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[adding bug-gnulib]
According to Stéphane Raimbault on 3/15/2009 5:09 AM:
> Yes, it's a nice and easy solution but I've already tried to use %5b
> without success on my system:
> gcc 4.3.2
> glibc 2.8 (may 2008)
>
> gcc complains
> warning: field wid
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 3/18/2009 8:31 PM:
> Ahh. The bug is in zile, not gnulib.
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/zile.git/tree/src/lists.c
Wow. That was my first experience with cgit instead of gitweb, and I
liked it. When did savannah ad
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Eric Blake wrote:
Ahh. The bug is in zile, not gnulib.
Ah, thanks very much, and apologies for the noise.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org/ | mediate, v.i. to butt in (Bierce)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[adding bug-zile]
According to Reuben Thomas on 3/18/2009 8:16 PM:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Eric Blake wrote:
>
>> Did you actually encounter a compilation failure where restrict was
>> improperly defined while using gnulib? If so, how do we reproduce
On Wed, 18 Mar 2009, Eric Blake wrote:
Did you actually encounter a compilation failure where restrict was
improperly defined while using gnulib? If so, how do we reproduce it?
It was not on my system, but on a BSD box that Nelson Beebe was kindly
building GNU Zile on for me. A bit of the bu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Reuben Thomas on 3/18/2009 7:50 PM:
> string.h uses restrict, which doesn't work if the compiler is C89 (e.g.
> gcc in -std=c89 mode).
>
> regex.h has some code to detect this case and allow for it; should
> string.h copy this code? Or sh
string.h uses restrict, which doesn't work if the compiler is C89 (e.g. gcc
in -std=c89 mode).
regex.h has some code to detect this case and allow for it; should string.h
copy this code? Or should it be broken out into a module? (It would be
useful to gnulib users too.)
--
http://rrt.sc3d.or
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Karl Berry on 3/18/2009 4:20 PM:
> Any objection to adding automake's compile program to the list of
> programs
> autoupdated into gnulib's build-aux directory?
>
> Certainly fine by me. Go for it, if you haven't already.
>
Any objection to adding automake's compile program to the list of programs
autoupdated into gnulib's build-aux directory?
Certainly fine by me. Go for it, if you haven't already.
Also, since doc/install.texi was recently autoupdated, we should
force a rerun of 'make -C doc INS
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 06:10:53PM CET:
> Any objection to adding automake's compile program to the list of programs
> autoupdated into gnulib's build-aux directory?
Not from me.
> I'd like to pick up the latest
> version of this file (modified this year) while stil
Any objection to adding automake's compile program to the list of programs
autoupdated into gnulib's build-aux directory? I'd like to pick up the latest
version of this file (modified this year) while still using a stable automake
release (which has a version from 2005), when I cut my release o
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Reuben Thomas on 3/17/2009 5:53 PM:
>> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks. That sounds like a fine improvement.
>>> Do you feel like writing a commit-log/ChangeLog entry, too?
>>> (i.e., git format-patch output, per e.g.,
>>> http://git.sv.gnu.
12 matches
Mail list logo