Bruno Haible ha escrit:
> - Do you really need *two* array-taking functions?
Yes, I believe so. I could remove one of them, but that would make
the interface more awkward. E.g. retaining only version_etc_ar would mean
extra iteration when called from version_etc_va. On the other hand,
retainin
Hi Sergey,
> Here's the updated patch.
I agree that if there is need for two variants, one taking an array and the
other taking a va_list as argument, the one with the array should be the
basic one, because it's easier to convert a va_list to an array than vice
versa.
Regarding version-etc.h:
Eric Blake ha escrit:
> One alternative is to massage the actual output through sed to match the
> expected output, regardless of the year from version-etc.c. Such as:
>
> ./test-ave --version | sed 's/(C) [0-9][0-9][0-9][0-9]/(C) 2009/' \
> | diff -c $TMP - || ERR=1
That's exactly what I
Sergey Poznyakoff gnu.org.ua> writes:
> > Why'd you drop the comments describing what the method does?
>
> I did not. I simply retained the original comment before version_etc_va.
> I should have supplied comments before the two new functions, that's
> true. I'll fix this.
I see now. It was ju
Here's the updated patch. It swaps the n_authors and authors arguments,
provides additional comments, removes the year-dependency from the
test case and adds a call to va_end in version_etc.
Regards,
Sergey
2009-06-24 Sergey Poznyakoff
Provide additional interfaces for version-etc module.
Eric Blake ha escrit:
> Why'd you drop the comments describing what the method does?
I did not. I simply retained the original comment before version_etc_va.
I should have supplied comments before the two new functions, that's
true. I'll fix this.
> I'd like to see the arguments reversed:
>
>
Sergey Poznyakoff gnu.org.ua> writes:
> The new module argp-version-etc (patch 2) is designed to
> facilitate the use of argp and version-etc modules together.
> This will ensure uniform version output between several
> programs within the same project, and will be useful for
> such projects as,
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 6:18 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Sam Steingold wrote:
>> if I remove the explicit call to gt_LC_MESSAGES
>> (which is called by AM_INTL_SUBDIR
>> which is called by AM_GNU_GETTEXT which we call explicitly)
>> then config.h.in no longer contains
>> #undef HAVE_LC_MESSAGES
>>
>>
Hello,
The new module argp-version-etc (patch 2) is designed to
facilitate the use of argp and version-etc modules together.
This will ensure uniform version output between several
programs within the same project, and will be useful for
such projects as, for example, GNU Inetutils.
This new fun
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Any objections to this patch? I know that many of the stdio extensions,
such as freading, should stay in their own header, since they are gnulib
extensions not found in any system. But several systems provide fpurge
directly in (and I'm working on a
Sam Steingold wrote:
> if I remove the explicit call to gt_LC_MESSAGES
> (which is called by AM_INTL_SUBDIR
> which is called by AM_GNU_GETTEXT which we call explicitly)
> then config.h.in no longer contains
> #undef HAVE_LC_MESSAGES
>
> why?
This is indeed unexpected. I believe it must be relate
Monty Taylor wrote:
> > Specifying -m64 in the CFLAGS is not enough. The autoconf documentation [1]
> > recommends to use either
> > CPPFLAGS=-m64 LDFLAGS=-m64
> > or
> > CC="gcc -m64".
> >
> > The reason is precisely so that autoconf tests which run the preprocessor
> > will yield the expected
12 matches
Mail list logo
