Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:12:39 +0900 From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, bug-gnu-gettext@....org Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols? 2016-04-07 15:26 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:34:01PM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote: >> 2016-04-07 11:26 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <ueno@....org>: >> > Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> 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. >> >> Indeed. >> >> > 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. > > The intent is that musl supports the _API_ fully, not the (IMO awful, > and against the whole spirit of gettext) GNU implementation of sysdep > strings as a segment of the mo file that's patched at runtime and > wastes core in every process. Instead, msgfmt (there's a prototype > version of the utility that does this, but it needs work) should > generate all possible combinations of the expansion of the sysdep > macros at mo generation time, and "sysdep" translations magically work > with no runtime cost. At some point I want to prepare a patch for > upstream msgfmt to do this but I haven't gotten around to it yet. > > I'm not sure what the %Id thing you're referring to is; can you point > me to a description of it? %Id is essentially an extension of printf(3) in glibc 2.2 and later. It can be implemented by the same way as how sysdep is implemented; it just depends on the current locale, not the ABI. Search http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/sprintf.3.html by "glibc 2.2 adds" for details. Fortunately, https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/c_002dformat.html describes that, if I understand this correctly, gettext can ignore the I flag if printf does not recognize it. I don't know whether such implementation matches the requirement of major 1 GNU mo format. -- 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.