Pádraig Brady wrote:
In general gnulib is still targeting c89 right?
BTW, when should we update that requirement?
Now is a good time. As far as I know, no Gnulib-using application still requires
porting to C89-only platforms. Although we still may have some issues with old C
libraries that su
On 04/23/2017 01:58 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
the only position that works for both C and C++ is the first one:
_GL_NORETURN_FUNC extern void foo (void);
Maybe a shorter name for this usage: _GL_NORETURN, perhaps?
Don't some compilers complain if the storage class ('extern', here) is
not fir
Hi Paul,
> Although this will work for GCC and Clang, I suppose it might cause other
> compilers to generate slightly-less-efficient code, because they won't know
> that
> print_and_abort does not return.
Good point. Yes.
> To avoid that problem, how about this further patch?
Yes, this fits
Bruno Haible wrote:
1) If _Noreturn does not apply to function pointers, only to functions, we
should better avoid it. It's an ill-defined standard's feature.
Hmm, well, we cannot avoid _Noreturn in general, since the standard requires it
for functions defined by the standard. Admittedly t
2017-04-23 Bruno Haible
doc: New section "Modules that modify the way other modules work".
* doc/gnulib.texi (Modules that modify the way other modules work): New
section.
diff --git a/doc/gnulib.texi b/doc/gnulib.texi
index b2defc0..ea7710c 100644
--- a/doc/gnulib.texi
I wrote on 2017-04-01:
> Next round. Here's a proposed patch, again for glob.c.
No one reviewed this; I've now applied it anyway.
2017-04-01 Bruno Haible
glob: Fix more memory leaks.
* lib/glob.c (glob): Free allocated memory before returning.
Reported by Coverity via
Hi Paul,
Thanks for explaining.
> > What is the semantic difference between _Noreturn and
> > __attribute_noreturn__?
>
> __attribute__ ((__noreturn__)), which the latter expands to, also works with
> function pointers, whereas _Noreturn does not. The distinction can matter
> when a
> functio
Paul Eggert wrote:
> OK, but getdtablesize returns 'int' so the 'poll' code should compare to
> INT_MAX
> ... How about the attached?
Thanks. I pushed it in your name, with an update of the dependencies list.
Bruno
