Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:14:44 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Fw: [buggnulib]Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs? On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:55:37PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > Here's the latest re: getting gnulib to use something portable... Thanks. > > The test as it stands is "error out on unsupported platforms unless > > user specifies to use slow method". > > My proposal is "On unsupported platforms, use the slow method instead > > of erroring out." > > I agree, downgrading to a #warning and removing SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS > should be enough. That would be something like this, but it would fail > the tests. What to do? > > Paolo Do you know what he's talking about for failing the tests? > diff --git a/lib/freadahead.c b/lib/freadahead.c > index 2ba8b34..473911f 100644 > --- a/lib/freadahead.c > +++ b/lib/freadahead.c > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@ > > [...] > + /* This implementation is correct on any ANSI C platform. It is just > + awfully slow. */ > + return freading(fp) && !feof(fp); This can definitely return 1 when no data is buffered, and when read would block, on some platforms. I think that could break some applications using the interface. Rich
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.