Daniel Richard G. wrote:
Okay, I've split my changes into a set of patches, attached. These
patches are orthogonal and may be applied in any order:
Thanks, I finally installed those into the main repository on Savannah. I had to
write ChangeLog entries, which I took from your email. I also fix
David Seifert wrote:
attached the patch. I believe this patch in fact increases strictness
even for C code, as it relies on the proper functioning of the "bool"
macro. I have tested it with multiple C and C++ compilers on OS X and
Linux:
Thanks, and sorry about the late reply. I installed the
Thanks for reporting that. I installed into Gnulib the attached
somewhat-more-elaborate patch, which should fix the problem.
>From 62dac84a8a9ce9cee76736e493a8ff8bcd71229d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paul Eggert
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2016 15:01:50 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] getdelim: remove dependen
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 6:06 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:15:18 CEST Pino Toscano wrote:
>> as discussed in [1], this series adds a new getprogname module.
>> All it does is providing a getprogname function, much like what is
>> found on e.g. *BSD systems, and usi
This all sounds good, thanks. Your attachment was a submodule diff (basically, a
pair of git commit IDs), so not much to review.
I have some dfa.c-related changes pending. I assume it'll be OK for me to commit
them to grep as needed, and that when you make the switch you'll grab the
then-curre
Now that two gnulib-using packages are using grep's DFA matcher, I am
going to move that code into gnulib, so there is one clear source of
truth.
GNU sed began using dfa.[ch] very recently.
While gawk has been copying grep's dfa.[ch] for a long time, it does
not use gnulib.
To that end, I've writ
Hi,
On Tuesday, 29 March 2016 14:15:18 CEST Pino Toscano wrote:
> as discussed in [1], this series adds a new getprogname module.
> All it does is providing a getprogname function, much like what is
> found on e.g. *BSD systems, and using it in gnulib instead of progname.
> Also, using it explicit