Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 14:34:01 +0900
From: Masanori Ogino <>
Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring
 internal symbols?

2016-04-07 11:26 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <>:
> Masanori Ogino <> writes:
>> That is why I proposed to have a blacklist of "broken" implementations
>> as an option.
>> AFAIK there have already been some blacklisting in autotools e.g.
>> checking the version of glibc to reject specific broken implementation
>> of a function. Thus, I think it's acceptable to use a blacklist. What
>> do you think about it?
> Yes, that sounds like a good idea.  But I guess we then need to collect
> information about incompatible implementations.  In this regard I'm
> actually not sure if the gettext-tools test coverage can be used as an
> indicator of compatibility.


> By the way, musl defines __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION in the same
> way as glibc:
>   #define __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION(major) ((major) == 0 ? 1 : -1)
> Is major = 1 + minor = 1 actually supported in musl?

musl doesn't support "%Id" (major 1) IIRC. I suspect that musl
actually supports "system dependent segment" (minor 1) as the GNU
implementation does.

On the other hand, glibc's definition is questionable too since it
seems that glibc's gettext implements major 1.

> After briefly checking Solaris 11 variants have:
>           ((((m) == 0) || ((m) == 1)) ? 1 : -1)

Masanori Ogino

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.