Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:09:56 +0900 From: Daiki Ueno <ueno@....org> To: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, bug-gnu-gettext@....org Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols? Hello, Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> writes: > 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. 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: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2006-03/msg00011.html 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? Regards, -- 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.