> From: Joachim Schmitz [mailto:j...@schmitz-digital.de] > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 12:42 PM
Yes, it's ben a while... > To: 'Paul Eggert' > Cc: '10...@debbugs.gnu.org'; 'bug-gnulib@gnu.org'; 'Eric Blake'; 'Jim > Meyering'; 'Schmitz, Joachim'; 'nagendra...@hp.com' > Subject: RE: bug#10305: coreutils-8.14, "rm -r" fails with EBADF > > > From: Paul Eggert [mailto:egg...@cs.ucla.edu] > > Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2012 7:38 AM > > To: Joachim Schmitz > > Cc: 10...@debbugs.gnu.org; bug-gnulib@gnu.org; 'Eric Blake'; 'Jim Meyering'; > > 'Schmitz, Joachim'; nagendra...@hp.com > > Subject: Re: bug#10305: coreutils-8.14, "rm -r" fails with EBADF > > > > On 07/20/2012 09:17 AM, Joachim Schmitz wrote: > > > The coreutils config.hin in 8.17 no more defines any of RAW_DECL_* > > functions, which were present in 8.15. Can we expect more problems because > > of this? > > Sorry, I've lost context -- there has been a blizzard of emails in this > > thread and I > > don't know what the current state is any more. > > > > As I understand it, the idea is that you submit your patches one at a time, > > against the current git master. Which patch runs afoul of the RAW_DECL_* > > change, and why? > > The patch in question here is this: > /usr/local/bin/diff -EBbu ./lib/getcwd.c.orig ./lib/getcwd.c > --- ./lib/getcwd.c.orig 2012-01-06 03:14:31 -0600 > +++ ./lib/getcwd.c 2012-07-19 11:34:01 -0500 > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ > size_t allocated = size; > size_t used; > > -#if HAVE_RAW_DECL_GETCWD && HAVE_MINIMALLY_WORKING_GETCWD > +#if (HAVE_RAW_DECL_GETCWD && HAVE_MINIMALLY_WORKING_GETCWD) || __TANDEM > /* If AT_FDCWD is not defined, the algorithm below is O(N**2) and > this is much slower than the system getcwd (at least on > GNU/Linux). So trust the system getcwd's results unless they > > And the fact that somewhere between corutils-8.15 and 8.17 these > HAVE_RAW_DECL_* have disappeared from config.hin. > Without the above patch we run into an endless recursion loop: getcwd(), > openat(), rpl_open(), get_name(), getcwd() .... > until we hit the max. stack limit and abort. > > While the above patch seems to fix this for use, Nagendra's concern is > whether there is more to the removal of these HAVE_RAW_DECL_* > stuff, whether there are other problems with these And the above patch is still needed to get coreutils-8.21 to build on HP-NonStop Bye, Jojo
