Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

2014-10-29 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 08:35:18PM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Alan Modra wrote: > >It is no longer possible to shrink an obstack with obstack_blank (but > >you can still do that with obstack_blank_fast). > > Ouch, I hadn't noticed that. That's an incompatible change and I expect it > will break

Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

2014-10-29 Thread Paul Eggert
Alan Modra wrote: One thing though, I didn't put the ChangeLog diffs in the patch as I usually add them when committing. Oh, I missed that. I added them now. For Gnulib it's better to put them into the patch. It is no longer possible to shrink an obstack with obstack_blank (but you can s

Re: [PATCH] 64-bit obstack support

2014-10-29 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 06:34:02PM +, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Alan Modra wrote: > > > And >2G on 32-bit. > > > > [BZ #14483] > > in the ChangeLog entry. Thanks, added. Since the stdalign.h change won't do for glibc, I've split the glibc patch into two. The fir

Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

2014-10-29 Thread Paul Eggert
Joseph S. Myers wrote: Note that we can't use in glibc sources unless we move to requiring GCC >= 4.7 Ah, thanks for mentioning that; the attached patch should fix that. I pushed this into gnulib. From d91a04a3dfc05b42031e8fd00af2cd29b6fa585d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert Date:

Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

2014-10-29 Thread Alan Modra
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:33:19AM -0700, Paul Eggert wrote: > Thanks for doing all this. The gnulib patches are good as far as they go, > but they need one more change: alignments should also change from int to > size_t. The first attached gnulib patch does that, plus it fixes a > longstanding in

Re: [PATCH] 64-bit obstack support

2014-10-29 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Alan Modra wrote: > And >2G on 32-bit. > [BZ #14483] in the ChangeLog entry. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com

Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

2014-10-29 Thread Joseph S. Myers
On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Paul Eggert wrote: > While we're in the neighborhood we should be using C11's alignof rather than > reinventing that particular wheel; the second attached gnulib patch does that. Note that we can't use in glibc sources unless we move to requiring GCC >= 4.7 (and it's not cl

Re: [PATCH 0/5] obstacks again

2014-10-29 Thread Paul Eggert
Thanks for doing all this. The gnulib patches are good as far as they go, but they need one more change: alignments should also change from int to size_t. The first attached gnulib patch does that, plus it fixes a longstanding integer overflow bug that can occur with large alignments (plus larg