Re: stdint.m4 tweak

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > ok to apply this code simplification? > > diff -r -c3 --unidirectional-new-file --exclude=CVS > gnulib-20060722/m4/stdint.m4 gnulib-20060722-modified/m4/stdint.m4 > *** gnulib-20060722/m4/stdint.m4 2006-07-11 13:54:20.0 +0200 > --

Re: va_copy, new module 'stdarg'

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The stdarg.m4 macro is now tested (it's used in gettext-0.15). Any objections > to this patch? That looks fine. Thank you!

Re: va_copy, new module 'stdarg'

Jim Meyering wrote: > > The stdarg.m4 macro is now tested (it's used in gettext-0.15). Any > > objections > > to this patch? > > That looks fine. Patch applied. 2006-07-25 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * modules/version-etc (Depends-on): Add stdarg. * lib/version-etc.c (ve

Re: [bug-gnulib] shell variable namespaces

Jim Meyering wrote: > I see that there are many other uses of "$result" in that file. > How about using a name that doesn't impinge on the configure.ac > writer's name space? E.g., s/result/gl_result/g in stdint.m4 There are many more shell variables used in macros that don't have a particular pr

Re: shell variable namespaces

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> I see that there are many other uses of "$result" in that file. >> How about using a name that doesn't impinge on the configure.ac >> writer's name space? E.g., s/result/gl_result/g in stdint.m4 > > There are many more shell variable

Re: split stdio-safer into fopen-safer, tmpfile-safer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Paul Eggert on 7/25/2006 12:24 AM: > With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile > is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer > module into two, as follows: Reasonable. In fact, it

Re: split stdio-safer into fopen-safer, tmpfile-safer

Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile > is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer > module into two, as follows: Can you expand on why tmpfile is not so safe? -- Ben Pfaff email: [EMAIL PRO

Re: stdint.m4 tweak

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ok to apply this code simplification? That's fine with me, thanks. (Though I wrote it that way so I wouldn't have to worry about the issue of namespace collision. So maybe it's simpler the way it is. :-)

Re: purpose of *-safer?

Hi Paul, When is it recommended to use these *-safer modules? What I understand is: If one of the file descriptors 0, 1, 2 is closed at program startup, and if you later use open() or fopen(), it might be possible that printf or fprintf statements to stdout or stderr are directed into this comple

Re: rewritten inttypes module

Thanks very much for tackling this! It will clean up quite a bit of code. Some comments: Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > + #if !defined PRId8 || PRI_MACROS_BROKEN > + # undef PRId8 > + # define PRId8 "d" > + #endif C99 says macro definitions like this should be skipped if C++, unles

Re: making stdint.m4 stricter

Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > It doesn't cost much add verify that the *_MIN macros are defined in > stdint.m4 (even if I haven't seen a system that defines *_MAX but not > the corresponding *_MIN). Likewise for the INT_LEAST_*_MAX/MIN macros. > > OK to commit? Yes, thanks.

Re: purpose of *-safer?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Bruno Haible on 7/25/2006 2:05 PM: > Hi Paul, > > When is it recommended to use these *-safer modules? > > What I understand is: If one of the file descriptors 0, 1, 2 is > closed at program startup, and if you later use open() or fopen(

Re: split stdio-safer into fopen-safer, tmpfile-safer

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Ben Pfaff on 7/25/2006 11:21 AM: > Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> With Bison I wanted fopen_safer but not tmpfile_safer (I think tmpfile >> is not that safe due to signals and whatnot), so I split the fopen-safer >> module i