Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/19/2012 06:51 AM, John Spencer wrote: >> *sigh*. >> talking to you guys is like talking to a wall. > > Please don't swear. This is a publicly archived list, and you are > coming across rather offensive. A positive attitude is more likely to > foster cooperation than berating others. > >>> There's no force here. The process is entirely voluntary. >>> >> ah perfect then, so please educate me where i can find the hidden switch >> to tell GNULIB: >> >> "NO I DONT WANT YOUR F****** BROKEN REPLACEMENT FUNCTIONS, THAT EVEN >> FAIL TO COMPILE WITH AN #ERROR, BECAUSE ITS AUTHORS ARE MORONS THAT >> DISABLED THE EXISTING PORTABLE FALLBACK CODE" ? > > This is your complaint about 'closein', and I think we are making > progress here. > > The problem is that the existing fallback code is not perfect - if you > would help us come up with a portable replacement that works > _efficiently_, then we could remove the #error everywhere. In the > meantime, the #error continues to serve its purpose - it has let us > improve both DragonFly and musl (thanks to recent commits adding > stdioext functions) and gnulib (to use those functions instead of poking > at musl FILE* internals or falling back to the #error), and the end > result will be that programs released against the latest version of > gnulib should now compile without error on musl, with no further effort > on your part, and without the speed penalty of the fallback code.
Thank you, Eric, for countering the cursing and abusive tone with calmly-delivered tips that should help John.
