[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
