Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:33:04 -0400
From: Rich Felker <>
Subject: Re: cluts comments

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 07:38:30PM +0200, Luka Marčetić wrote:
> >alloc.c does not compile with glibc here
> >it seems _POSIX_C_SOURCE is not enough for
> >glibc to have SA_NODEFER in signal.h
> >i guess that's a glibc bug..
> Thanks for the bug, Szabolcs. I'll correct it, and also add the header.
> Not sure why you get an error for SA_NODEFER though. It compiles for
> me just fine with gcc version 4.6.1 (Debian 4.6.1-5) .

I think he must be using an older version of glibc. It looks like they
fixed it to support POSIX 2008 better sometime this year.. Since it's
worthwhile to be able to test and evaluate regressions versus older
glibc versions, please make an effort to support them too if it's not
a big deal. (I thought the SA_NODEFER stuff was going to be removed
anyway, though..??)

> Well it is used more, I don't know about a convention... I do like
> %i better (though I was taught %d - hence the omissions). The reason
> why I like %i is that it implies the integer type. And that's what i
> have in alloc.c.

Yes, but %d makes explicit the base you want it printed in. :)
I'd never thought of %i as being useful in contrase with %f in code
that's mixing int/float and always using decimal, since I'm much more
often using integers only and more interested in the base...


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.