Re: [PATCH] sigsegv-tests: port to GCC 14

2024-09-20 Thread Bruno Haible
Paul Eggert did: > Fix the test by putting ‘volatile’ at the right place. Thanks!

[PATCH] sigsegv-tests: port to GCC 14

2024-09-20 Thread Paul Eggert
GCC 14 on x86-64 with -O2 apparently outsmarts our test for null pointer dereference, and this is something the C standard allows. Fix the test by putting ‘volatile’ at the right place. * tests/test-sigsegv-catch-stackoverflow2.c (null_pointer): Make it a volatile pointer, not a pointer to volatile

jit/cache tests: Fix crash with clang's UBSAN + ASAN

2024-09-20 Thread Bruno Haible
Building a testdir with clang + UBSAN + ASAN, I see a test crash: $ ./test-cache AddressSanitizer:DEADLYSIGNAL = ==3658512==ERROR: AddressSanitizer: SEGV on unknown address 0x7faa9986fff8 (pc 0x55d0bf01f1c5 bp 0x7ffe85347200 sp 0x7f

unictype/scripts: Fix integer overflow in generated table

2024-09-20 Thread Bruno Haible
With clang 19, I see a warning: ../../gllib/unictype/scripts.h:2637:26: warning: implicit conversion from 'int' to 'short' changes value from 32768 to -32768 [-Wconstant-conversion] The cause is that through the Unicode 16 upgrade, the level3 array in the generated scripts.h grew from 248 blocks

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] wait-process: Use waitpid() from LIBCx on OS/2 kLIBC if possible

2024-09-20 Thread KO Myung-Hun
Bruno Haible wrote: > KO Myung-Hun wrote: * lib/wait-process.c (klibc_waitpid) [kLIBC]: New function. (waitpid) [kLIBC]: Define it to klibc_waitpid. >>> >>> The code looks good, but lacks comments. In the ChangeLog or git commit >>> entry, please state *what* has changed, not *why* or

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] wait-process: Use waitpid() from LIBCx on OS/2 kLIBC if possible

2024-09-20 Thread Bruno Haible
KO Myung-Hun wrote: > >> * lib/wait-process.c (klibc_waitpid) [kLIBC]: New function. > >> (waitpid) [kLIBC]: Define it to klibc_waitpid. > > > > The code looks good, but lacks comments. In the ChangeLog or git commit > > entry, please state *what* has changed, not *why* or *how* the code works. >

Re: Merge fnmatch and fnmatch-gnu?

2024-09-20 Thread Bernhard Voelker
On 9/20/24 06:21, Collin Funk wrote: It appears that the only difference is the ./configure check. Wasn't it more due to a license issue of pulled-in modules, GPL vs. LGPL? Have a nice day, Berny