Sam Steingold wrote:
> when a CC=g++, tests in mbrtowc.m4 fail with
>
> error: 'mbtowc' was not declared in this scope
>
> since 'mbtowc' is declared in stdlib.h,
> I think this patch is in order:
You're absolutely right. Applied like this:
2009-06-25 Sam Steingold
* mbrtowc.m4 (gl
Eric Blake ha escrit:
> And introduced a bug to plain version_etc clients in the process, with the
> potential to make --version segfault. Sorry for not spotting it before you
> committed:
Oops, it's me who should apologize for not spotting it!
> I will be checking in this patch, if no one e
Sergey Poznyakoff gnu.org.ua> writes:
> I have fixed the issues Bruno pointed out in his posting, and committed
> the following changes.
And introduced a bug to plain version_etc clients in the process, with the
potential to make --version segfault. Sorry for not spotting it before you
commit
Hi,
when a CC=g++, tests in mbrtowc.m4 fail with
error: 'mbtowc' was not declared in this scope
since 'mbtowc' is declared in stdlib.h,
I think this patch is in order:
2009-06-15 Sam Steingold
* mbrtowc.m4 (gl_MBRTOWC_SANITYCHECK): include
for the mbtowc declaration
---
Sergey Poznyakoff gnu.org.ua> writes:
> default:
>/* 10 or more authors. Use an abbreviation, since the human reader
> @@ -147,12 +158,49 @@ Written by %s, %s, %s,\n%s, %s, %s, %s,\n%s, and %
s.\n"),
>/* TRANSLATORS: Each %s denotes an author name.
>You can use line
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 6/24/2009 6:52 AM:
> 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 syste
Bruno Haible ha escrit:
> typo:assumed
[..]
> A dependency to 'version-etc' is missing. It leads to this error:
Thanks, Bruno. I've fixed it.
> $ ./gnulib-tool --test argp-version-etc
I ran ./gnulib-tool --test --with-tests argp-version-etc, and it pulled
the missing dependency via module
Another issue: consistency. With Bruno's approach, a public function must
have *no* spec just before its definition, while each private one does.
I think we all agree that duplicating the spec (before definition and in
the .h file) is not maintainable.
That also depends on whether you insist
Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> I have fixed the issues Bruno pointed out in his posting, and committed
> the following changes.
Thanks. The doc is fine: Putting general comments at the top of the file
is a good solution.
> + If NAME is NULL, the package name (as given by the PACKAGE macro)
> + is
Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
>> Another issue: consistency. With Bruno's approach, a public function must
>> have *no* spec just before its definition, while each private one does.
>> I think we all agree that duplicating the spec (before definition and in
>> the .h file) is not maintainab
Hi Jim,
> Another issue: consistency. With Bruno's approach, a public function must
> have *no* spec just before its definition, while each private one does.
> I think we all agree that duplicating the spec (before definition and in
> the .h file) is not maintainable.
Unfortunately your mail arr
Hello,
I have fixed the issues Bruno pointed out in his posting, and committed
the following changes.
Regards,
Sergey
>From 3457fcf5632d0411821c6ca61b09c945da9b1063 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Sergey Poznyakoff
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:31:56 +0300
Subject: [PATCH] Provide additional interf
Sergey Poznyakoff wrote:
> Bruno Haible ha escrit:
...
>> +/* Like version_etc, below, but with the NULL-terminated author list
>> + provided via a variable of type va_list. */
>>
>> Ouch! Not only you expect the user to look up the documentation of the
>> API inside a long source file,
13 matches
Mail list logo