Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-08 Thread Jim Meyering
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Gisle Vanem wrote: >> Jim Meyering wrote: >> >>> +# elif HAVE_DECL___ARGV >>> + return last_component (__argv); >> >> This should be: >> return last_component (*__argv); >> >> Or with a bit more care: >>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-07 Thread Jim Meyering
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Gisle Vanem wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: > >> +# elif HAVE_DECL___ARGV >> + return last_component (__argv); > > This should be: > return last_component (*__argv); > > Or with a bit more care: > if (*__argv == NULL) > return ("?"); > return last_componen

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-07 Thread Gisle Vanem
Jim Meyering wrote: > +# elif HAVE_DECL___ARGV > + return last_component (__argv); This should be: return last_component (*__argv); Or with a bit more care: if (*__argv == NULL) return ("?"); return last_component (__argv); And in the test: +int +main (void) +{ + char const *p = g

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-07 Thread Jim Meyering
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Gisle Vanem wrote: >> Jim Meyering wrote: >> >>> From the output of that mingw configure run, it appears they are not >>> declared -- at least not in any header included by this particular >>> test program: >>>

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-06 Thread Jim Meyering
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Gisle Vanem wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: > >> From the output of that mingw configure run, it appears they are not >> declared -- at least not in any header included by this particular >> test program: >> >> checking whether program_invocation_name is declared...

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-06 Thread Gisle Vanem
Jim Meyering wrote: > From the output of that mingw configure run, it appears they are not > declared -- at least not in any header included by this particular > test program: > > checking whether program_invocation_name is declared... no > checking whether program_invocation_short_name is de

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-06 Thread Jim Meyering
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 6:49 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 13:13:52 CEST T J wrote: >> Anyway, it appears that this has not been tested on Windows/MinGW as >> it currently does not work. Everything worked fine with the old >> progname module. >> >> A sample b

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-06 Thread T J
ample build log is here: https://ci.appveyor.com/project/fontforge/fontforge/build/1.0.32 Thanks, Jeremy From: bug-gnulib on behalf of Jim Meyering Sent: Tuesday, 6 September 2016 12:47 PM To: Pino Toscano Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org List Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-06 Thread Pino Toscano
Hi Jeremy, On Tuesday, 6 September 2016 13:13:52 CEST T J wrote: > Anyway, it appears that this has not been tested on Windows/MinGW as > it currently does not work. Everything worked fine with the old > progname module. > > A sample build log is here: > https://ci.appveyor.com/project/fontforge

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-06 Thread Pino Toscano
On Monday, 5 September 2016 21:47:31 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > >> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 20:47:15 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: > > ... > >> Another thing: should some deprecation warn

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-05 Thread Jim Meyering
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: >> On Saturday, 3 September 2016 20:47:15 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: > ... >> Another thing: should some deprecation warning/note be added regarding >> the progname module? > > I like the idea

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-05 Thread Jim Meyering
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 7:28 AM, Pino Toscano wrote: > On Saturday, 3 September 2016 20:47:15 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: ... > Another thing: should some deprecation warning/note be added regarding > the progname module? I like the idea of adding a deprecation warning. If it could be completely repl

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-05 Thread Pino Toscano
On Saturday, 3 September 2016 20:47:15 CEST Jim Meyering wrote: > On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:18 AM, 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 usin

Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-09-03 Thread Jim Meyering
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 6:18 AM, 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 explicitly by modul

[PATCH v2 0/4] New getprogname module

2016-08-18 Thread Pino Toscano
Hi, 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 explicitly by modules avoids gnulib users the need of either use the prognam