On 12/17/2016 09:32 AM, Gisle Vanem wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
>
>> Can't see how that can run fine? The compiler will set up the call
>> assuming cdecl convention, while the called function has stdcall
>> convention.
>
> I would expect the 'reinterpret_cast(::getaddrinfo)' to fix that.
> Runni
On 12/18/2016 01:16 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:
>> m4/inet_pton.m4 has this:
>>
>> if test $ac_cv_have_decl_inet_pton = yes; then
>> dnl It needs to be overridden, because the stdcall calling convention
>> dnl is not compliant with POSIX.
>> REPLACE_INET_PTON=
* modules/getopt-posix-tests (test_getopt_posix_LDADD):
Fix typo: the last ‘_’ was missing in the name.
I suspect that the typo explains this build failure:
https://buildfarm.opencsw.org/buildbot/builders/ggrep-solaris10-sparc/builds/39
although I can’t reproduce the problem on Solaris 10 sparc.
--
Thanks Paul.
> * modules/getopt-posix-tests (test_getopt_posix_LDADD):
> Fix typo: the last ‘_’ was missing in the name.
> I suspect that the typo explains this build failure:
> https://buildfarm.opencsw.org/buildbot/builders/ggrep-solaris10-sparc/builds/39
Yes it was the cause for sure. The log
> 2016-12-17 Bruno Haible
>
> stdint: Fix WINT_MAX to match the gnulib provided wint_t on MSVC.
> * m4/stdint.m4 (gl_STDINT_H): Define GNULIB_OVERRIDES_WINT_T.
> * modules/stdint (Makefile.am): Substitute GNULIB_OVERRIDES_WINT_T.
> * lib/stdint.in.h [GNULIB_OVERRIDES_WIN
On Sun, 18 Dec 2016 23:48:10 -0800
Paul Eggert wrote:
> >> 'delete' is
> >> O(N); 'replace' calls 'delete' in a loop and is therefore O(N**2).
> >> 'epsclosure' calls 'replace' in a loop and so I suppose it is O(N**3).
> >> I haven't looked into how likely the worst-case performance is, though.
On 64-bit Windows, the vma_iterate runs into an endless loop.
Seen in the 'test-dprintf-posix2.sh' test. This fixes it.
2016-12-19 Bruno Haible
vma-iter: Fix endless loop on 64-bit Windows.
* lib/vma-iter.c (vma_iterate): On Windows, use 'uintptr_t' instead of
'unsigne
On 12/19/2016 02:38 PM, Norihiro Tanaka wrote:
BTW, What case do you the worst? One more I think previous 'replace' is
not O(N*(N + log N)) but O(N + N log N) i.e. O(N log N) .
Well, perhaps I misunderstood it, but the old 'replace' called 'delete'
up to N times, and 'delete' took O(log N) to
Here's the status of running a gnulib testdir of `./posix-modules --for-msvc`
on recent mingw and MSVC 14.
Volunteers to work on this are welcome. You have the Hanukkah or Christmas
season in front of you :)
===
20 Failu
