Ben Walton wrote:
> Thanks for saving me the legwork on this. The patch does correct the
> problem. I appreciate the quick turnaround on this.
Thanks to both of you.
I've just updated coreutils to use the latest from gnulib,
so this will be fixed in coreutils-8.11.
However, contrary to most NEW
Excerpts from Jim Meyering's message of Sun Mar 13 05:11:33 -0400 2011:
Hi Jim,
> I've just updated coreutils to use the latest from gnulib, so this
> will be fixed in coreutils-8.11.
Great!
> Ben, can you confirm that touch from coreutils-8.7 did not have this
> problem? I'll wait for confirm
I was a bit perplexed to find that one of the tests in maint.mk
instructs me to use STREQ/STRNEQ instead of strcmp, but, while this is
eminently sensible, not only is no definition of STRNEQ provided, but
that of STREQ isn't the one meant, but rather an optimised 11-argument
horror for short litera
They're specified in POSIX, so if that doesn't count as portable, it'd
be nice to have a little more explanation in the comment in maint.mk.
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
On 03/13/2011 07:30 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> They're specified in POSIX
They're marked as an obsolescent XSI extension in POSIX.1-2008.
That is, they're not required by POSIX, and even as an
optional extension they may go away in future versions.
The rationale explains why -a and -o are depreca
Hi Bastien,
> In order to avoid a race add a recvfd(int fd, int flags). flags could be
> O_CLOEXEC.
> ---
> lib/passfd.c | 58
> +++-
> lib/passfd.h |1 +
> m4/afunix.m4 | 22 +
> modules/passfd |1 +
This
Hi Bastien,
> lib/passfd.c | 147
>
> lib/passfd.h | 21
> modules/passfd | 30 +++
This code looked nearly fine as well (at least superficially), so I've
committed it in your name with this ChangeLog entry:
2011
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> > This Makefile is so specialized that I think it can assume GNU make.
>> > Does anyone prefer not to do that?
>>
>> No complaint by me, although we might want to 'git mv {,GNU}Makefile' to
>> make the change obvious.
>
> When a newbie looks whether there
Ben Walton wrote:
>> Ben, can you confirm that touch from coreutils-8.7 did not have this
>> problem? I'll wait for confirmation before pushing.
>
> I just built 8.7 (I skipped from 8.4 -> 8.8) with my build script and
> tested it. It works correctly, so I'd say that yes, the problem was
> introd
Hello Bastien,
> Add simple testing for passfd
> ---
> modules/passfd-tests | 11 +
> tests/test-passfd.c | 112
> ++
I added this too, untabified, and with this ChangeLog entry and tweaks:
2011-03-07 Bastien Roucariès
passfd
Hi Eric,
On OpenBSD 4.4, which uses a gcc version 3.3.5, I get these warnings:
test-ignore-value.c:35: warning: `__warn_unused_result__' attribute directive
ignored
test-ignore-value.c:36: warning: `__warn_unused_result__' attribute directive
ignored
test-ignore-value.c:37: warning: `__warn_unu
On 13 March 2011 15:22, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/13/2011 07:30 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> They're specified in POSIX
>
> They're marked as an obsolescent XSI extension in POSIX.1-2008.
Pity that the POSIX man pages say none of this (but I don't know that
they even mention 2008).
Thanks for th
make syntax-check is complaining about space-tabs (sc_space_tab) in a
sort of file where this is perfectly permissable: a .diff file. Why do
I have a diff file in version control? Because I'm patching gnulib.
Of course, I can add this to VC_LIST_ALWAYS_EXCLUDE_REGEX, but maybe
.diff files should b
i.e. just before
gnulib_dir ?= $(srcdir)/gnulib
have
gnulib_dir ?= $(GNULIB_SRCDIR)
?
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
After the passfd source code is written and polished and has a unit test,
now comes testing on various platforms.
The first one is a glibc system. I get these warnings:
test-passfd.c: In function ‘main’:
test-passfd.c:81: warning: implicit declaration of function ‘waitpid’
test-passfd.c:103: war
On OpenBSD 4.4, I get this compilation error:
passfd.c: In function `sendfd':
passfd.c:45: error: storage size of `iov' isn't known
The reason is that for 'struct iovec' you need , not only
(look in POSIX!). This fixes it:
2011-03-13 Bruno Haible
passfd: Fix compilation error on Op
Currently, maint.mk has the line (1077):
$$(git cat-file tag v$(VERSION) > .ann-sig \
Is this v$(VERSION) somehow different from the one that is the
definition of this-vc-tag for the git case? i.e. why's $(this-vc-tag)
not used here instead of v$(VERSION)?
--
http://rrt.sc3d.org
On FreeBSD 6.4, the compilation succeeds but the test fails:
recvfd: Function not implemented
sendfd: Function not implemented
FAIL: test-passfd
config.log shows this:
configure:7701: checking for UNIX domain sockets SCM_RIGHTS that behave in BSD4.
4 way
configure:7744: gcc -c -g -O2 -Wall conft
On AIX 5.1 and likely also 5.2, I get these warnings
passfd.c: In function 'sendfd':
passfd.c:60: warning: implicit declaration of function 'CMSG_SPACE'
passfd.c:67: warning: implicit declaration of function 'CMSG_LEN'
and later on link errors because CMSG_SPACE and CMSG_LEN are not functions.
T
On Solaris, I get a link error:
gcc -g -O2 -o test-passfd test-passfd.o ../gllib/libgnu.a
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
socketpair test-passfd.o
recvmsg ../gllib/libgnu.a(passfd.
Here's the result of testing passfd:
Linux OK BSD4.4 way, MSG_CMSG_CLOEXEC
FreeBSDOK BSD4.4 way
OpenBSDOK BSD4.4 way
NetBSD FAILBSD4.4 way
AIXOK BSD4.4 way
HP-UX OK BSD4.3 way
IRIX OK BSD4.3 way
OSF/1 OK BSD4.4 way
Sol
What's the intended use of VC-tag in maint.mk? I can't seem to find
anything on this in the manual, or in the code, and only a short note
when it was added in the ChangeLog. $(VC-tag) doesn't seem to be used
anywhere. This seems to be connected with the comment:
# If it's not already specified, de
Reuben Thomas writes:
> On 13 March 2011 15:22, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 03/13/2011 07:30 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>> They're specified in POSIX
>>
>> They're marked as an obsolescent XSI extension in POSIX.1-2008.
>
> Pity that the POSIX man pages say none of this (but I don't know that
> they
23 matches
Mail list logo
