Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
...
> Nice speedup! A couple of comments, reading the patch:
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for taking the time.
>> diff --git a/lib/fts.c b/lib/fts.c
>> index 164834c..735f23f 100644
>> --- a/lib/fts.c
>> +++ b/lib/fts.c
>
>> +case S_MAGIC_PROC:
>> + /* Explicitly listing thi
Jim Meyering writes:
> I vaguely recall feeling a slight twinge as I did that,
> but since coreutils proper has been using decl-after-stmt,
> for so long, I let it slide.
How does that work? Do most compilers out there really support
decl-after-stmt (not likely?!), or do you offer a patch for u
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jim Meyering writes:
>> I vaguely recall feeling a slight twinge as I did that,
>> but since coreutils proper has been using decl-after-stmt,
>> for so long, I let it slide.
>
> How does that work? Do most compilers out there really support
> decl-after-stmt (not likely?
Jim Meyering wrote:
...
> Here's an incremental, then the adjusted full patch.
>
> BTW, I test this with coreutils by running chcon -R[*] on a directory
> containing 1000 files. With the patch, strace -c reports *1*
> calls to newfstatat, but without, it reports 1001 of them.
Pushed.
Jim Meyering writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Jim Meyering writes:
>>> I vaguely recall feeling a slight twinge as I did that,
>>> but since coreutils proper has been using decl-after-stmt,
>>> for so long, I let it slide.
>>
>> How does that work? Do most compilers out there really support
Jim Meyering wrote:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Jim Meyering writes:
(Since when do raw e-mail addresses get tossed around so much, here?
That seems to be a new development... Anyway, I'd appreciate if you
don't do that with mine.)
I vaguely recall feeling a slight twinge as I did that,
but si
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Jim Meyering writes:
>
>> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>> Jim Meyering writes:
I vaguely recall feeling a slight twinge as I did that,
but since coreutils proper has been using decl-after-stmt,
for so long, I let it slide.
>>>
>>> How does that work? Do most
Patch attached to update wording for m4/include_next.m4 to reveal recent
IBM PTF's that fix the #include_next bug in IBM C 9.0/10.1.
--
albert chin (ch...@thewrittenword.com)
>From 9095347bf98b43fce0268d72bef47e74bca1eec1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Albert Chin-A-Young
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009
Do most compilers out there really support
decl-after-stmt (not likely?!),
In compiling the binaries for TeX Live, where we try to use fairly old
compilers and systems, the only platform which had problems with
decl-after-stmt was v5 of the IBM C compiler for AIX 4.3. There are
various r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Martin Walch on 2/13/2009 5:30 PM:
> When using rather new versions of glibc (2.8...) and gcc (4.3.3), I get an
> ugly warning on the screen during the execution of some configure scripts
> like
> the ones from coreutils or m4. It says:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Karl Berry on 2/13/2009 6:00 PM:
> On the other hand, I thought I remembered seeing some previous mail
> about not requiring C99 in general. So we consider decl-after-stmt an
> exception to this?
True C99 support is very difficult to fin
11 matches
Mail list logo
