Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:09:56 +0900
From: Daiki Ueno <>
To: Masanori Ogino <>
Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols?


Masanori Ogino <> writes:

> 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.
> Indeed.

I was wondering if there is anything could be done in the upcoming
gettext release.  Let's go back to the original explanation by Bruno:
where he states two things:

1. The purpose of the checks are excluding incompatible implementations,
   e.g., NetBSD (around 1.5?) and Solaris 7

2. The __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION macro is a recent addition

In that case, I guess we could bypass the symbol checks if
__GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION is defined, as long as broken
implementations do not define it.

How about the attached patch?

Daiki Ueno

View attachment "0001-m4-Rely-less-on-internal-symbols.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3381 bytes)

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.