Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:33:57 -0700 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:46:10 +0100 Reuben Thomas <rrt@...d.org> 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__ .. #else if SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS //return 1 #else //build error #endif 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: -#else if SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS +#else //return 1 -#else -//build error +//warn "falling back to stub, please port" #endif 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.