Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:33:57 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <>
Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance

On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:46:10 +0100
Reuben Thomas <> wrote:

> As regards the particular problem with freadahead, looking at the code
> suggests a workaround of -DSLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS to avoid trying to build
> the FILE-fiddling code.
Having looked at that code myself, I think there's some idiotic tests
going on:
#ifdef __OSNAME
#else if __system2__
//return 1
//build error

1. If I define SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS, it should be the first test.
(if I run MINT and define this, assume I mean it!)
2. If it works with a stub, why do we get an error?

I'd suggest more-or-less this approach:
//return 1
-//build error
+//warn "falling back to stub, please port"

Of course, I know this isn't the right place to discuss such
things--that would be for gnulib. 
Isaac Dunham

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.