Nick Stoughton said:
> As to the original question ... can a system that implements ssize_t
> with a SSIZE_MAX of 56k conform to POSIX?
No: SSIZE_MAX is the maximum value of ssize_t; since this is an integer
type, its maximum value must be one less than a power of 2.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | Wor
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> I think ==, !=, isordered, isunordered comparisons are
> the sole operations you can safely perform on a SNaN.
Even these operations will trap on a SNaN, according to [1]:
Signaling NaNs shall be reserved operands that signal the invalid
operation exception (7.1) for
Eric Blake wrote:
> 2007-03-26 Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * m4/vasnprintf.m4: Fix regression in logic sense of previous
> patch.
Thanks. Of course.
Bruno
Eric Blake byu.net> writes:
> > --- 66,79
> > AC_DEFUN([gl_PREREQ_VASNPRINTF_DIRECTIVE_A],
> > [
> > AC_REQUIRE([gl_PRINTF_DIRECTIVE_A])
> > ! case "$gl_cv_func_printf_directive_a" in
> > ! *yes)
>
> ;;
> *) # You need this, to avoid flipping the sense of
> -Original Message-
> From: Clive D.W. Feather [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > While we're at it, I would be interested in the rational
> for "inventing"
> > ssize_t and not using ptrdiff_t instead, if anyone would care to
> > comment.
>
> size_t has to be able to hold the size of the la
Schwarz, Konrad said:
> I see that e.g.,
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/read.html
I wasn't aware that the return type of read() had changed to ssize_t.
> so these types of functions can't
> deal with arbitrary objects (in the case that sizeof (ssize_t) < sizeof
> (ptrdi
Schwarz, Konrad said:
> While we're at it, I would be interested in the rational for "inventing"
> ssize_t and not using ptrdiff_t instead, if anyone would care to
> comment.
size_t has to be able to hold the size of the largest object. It is an
unsigned type.
ptrdiff_t has to be able to hold the
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Blake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Again, if your ssize_t is smaller than 32 bits, your
> platform has
> > other issues. Just because POSIX allows ssize_t to be
> as small as
> > 16 bits doesn't mean many modern platforms do that.
While
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Bruno Haible on 3/26/2007 4:23 AM:
> *** 66,77
> AC_DEFUN([gl_PREREQ_VASNPRINTF_DIRECTIVE_A],
> [
> AC_REQUIRE([gl_PRINTF_DIRECTIVE_A])
> ! if ! expr "$gl_cv_func_printf_directive_a" : ".*yes" > /dev/null; then
> --- 66,79
It seems that the following patch needs to be applied, since
utf*-ucs4-unsafe.h no longer exist:
--- ../../gnulib/lib/linebreak.c2007-02-04 09:24:21.0
+0900
+++ linebreak.c 2007-03-26 18:16:47.0 +0800
@@ -26,9 +26,7 @@
#include "c-ctype.h"
#include "xsize.h"
-#includ
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> `if !' is not portable, please use
> if $cmd; then :; else
>
> instead
Thanks for spotting this. I rewrite it like this, remembering the Cygwin
people who count the number of forks and execs that a shell script does.
2007-03-26 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The sysexits test that I wrote verifies that all values from EX_OK to
> EX_CONFIG
> are present and have distinct values.
>
> This fails on HP-UX. It has a file which contains only te values
> up to EX_NOPERM. The values are the same, though (at least :
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Simon,
>
> On IRIX 6.5, the replacement getaddrinfo is used, and since the testsuite
> exercises calling it will a hints = NULL pointer, it crashes in line 182.
>
> Here is a proposed patch.
Hi Bruno. It looks fine, please install.
/Simon
>
> 2007-
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Warning seen on IRIX 6.5:
>
> "///usr/include/unistd.h", line 43: warning(1047): macro redefined differently
>
> IRIX 6.5 has two definitions of EX_OK:
> - one in , protected with "#if _SGIAPI", as a flag that can be
> passed to the access() functio
14 matches
Mail list logo
