Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Paul Eggert
On 03/05/2012 02:27 PM, Bruno Haible wrote: > Then how about using "==" or ":=" to designate the assignment? That's too fancy. Plain '=' would be better. We can also support notations like '+700' and '-77' to OR-in or AND-out arbitrary masks. This would be a clear and straightforward extension

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Ondrej Vasik
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 23:27 +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Ondrej Vasik wrote: > > Therefore @ sign was chosen > > based on http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8391#59 ... > > The choice was pretty random: >"we can choose some otherwise-unused character, such as '@'." > > By the same a

expl: rewrite

2012-03-05 Thread Bruno Haible
Additional unit tests that I wrote and that check how close exp (x) * exp (- x) gets to 1.0 revealed that the gnulib implementation produces gross rounding errors here. Where other implementations produce an error of 2 ulp, with the gnulib expl we get: - On FreeBSD: 104174 ulp

readline: Adaption for NetBSD.

2012-03-05 Thread Mats Erik Andersson
Dear all, I would like to propose a modification to the M4 file for the module `readline', which provides a functional detection also for NetBSD. The main obstacle is that NetBSD uses the library `editline', and offer readline functionality as a wrapper based on said library. The present state of

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Bruno Haible
Ondrej Vasik wrote: > Therefore @ sign was chosen > based on http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8391#59 ... The choice was pretty random: "we can choose some otherwise-unused character, such as '@'." By the same argument one could also choose any of '%' '^' ',' '.' '_' > H

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Ondrej Vasik
On Mon, 2012-03-05 at 21:20 +0100, Bruno Haible wrote: > Paul Eggert wrote: > > this use of "+" does not conflict with input usages like > > "chmod +x foo". > > It's because this use of '+' is easy to remember. > "chmod +x" means "add execution permissions". > "chmod -x" means "remove execution pe

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Bob Proulx
Bruno Haible wrote: > It's because this use of '+' is easy to remember. > "chmod +x" means "add execution permissions". > "chmod -x" means "remove execution permissions". To be pedantic that isn't quite true. To be pedantic it actually is gated by the process umask in effect at that time. You ne

Re: new module 'cbrtl'

2012-03-05 Thread Bruno Haible
Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > cbrtf(-0.0) = -Inf(ouch!!) > > cbrtl(-0.0) = +0.0 > > > > The patches are similar; here's the second one. > > I suppose the one for cbrtf does not add an -ieee variant? Indeed, the documentation in doc/posix-functions/cbrtf.texi does not mention a 'cbrtf-ieee' mo

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert wrote: > this use of "+" does not conflict with input usages like > "chmod +x foo". It's because this use of '+' is easy to remember. "chmod +x" means "add execution permissions". "chmod -x" means "remove execution permissions". You want a symbol for "assign exact permissions". IMO th

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Paul Eggert
On 03/05/2012 08:42 AM, Bruno Haible wrote: > This use of '@' in a mode string conflicts with the use of '@' on > MacOS X 10.5 and newer to designate "extended attributes" (like > quarantine information on MacOS X 10.7). I don't see why. That's an *output* format, whereas we're talking about an *

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Bruno Haible
Ondrej Vasik cited Paul Eggert: > > recommend leading '@' for future scripts. This use of '@' in a mode string conflicts with the use of '@' on MacOS X 10.5 and newer to designate "extended attributes" (like quarantine information on MacOS X 10.7). $ /bin/ls -l /etc/ntp.conf -rw-r--r--@ 1 root w

Re: bug#8391: chmod setuid & setguid bits

2012-03-05 Thread Ondrej Vasik
On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 11:47 -0800, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 02/24/2012 11:33 AM, Ondrej Vasik wrote: > > Yes, but `chmod @755 DIR' approach will not let you to write a script > > which will work without modification on RHEL-4,RHEL-5 and RHEL-6 > > machine... > > None of these approaches will let yo

Re: math code origin

2012-03-05 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 29/02/2012 12:29, Bruno Haible ha scritto: > When writing new math functions code, it is useful to know where the > existing code in gnulib comes from. Assuming that no one here has the > expertise to compute Chebyshev polynomials for transcendental functions, > it is clear from which files Paol

Re: new module 'cbrtl'

2012-03-05 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Il 01/03/2012 04:56, Bruno Haible ha scritto: > The IEEE tests show that on IRIX 6.5 > cbrtf(-0.0) = -Inf(ouch!!) > cbrtl(-0.0) = +0.0 > > The patches are similar; here's the second one. I suppose the one for cbrtf does not add an -ieee variant? Paolo