On 08/17/10 19:11, Johan Hattne wrote:
> The attached patch is only meant to illustrate the sort of solution I
> had in mind in the special case of findutils-4.4.8, namely some sort
> --enable/disable-selinux option to the configure script.
The general idea seems sound, but it sounds like it shoul
Hi Eric,
Yes, I agree now that there is no point in bringing this to the Austin group.
> Basically, since
> %zu is already specified by C99 and POSIX, the only reason that you
> would need PRIuSIZE is if you are targetting a non-POSIX system that
> lacks %zu in the first place.
Right. And additi
On 18 August 2010 12:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> We have been very strict in adding extensions to the POSIX APIs
> (basically only REG_STARTEND).
Right, whereas in other parts of the GNU APIs there are rather more
liberal additions (just grep the man pages for _GNU_SOURCE). What's
the reason not t
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:54:51AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 08/18/2010 08:30 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > Still, I'm reluctant to bite the bullet and go with the LGPLv2+ cascade
> > on vasprintf-posix. So maybe the solution is an intermediate module:
> >
> > LGPLv2+ vasprintf - bare bones, guar
On 08/18/2010 08:30 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Still, I'm reluctant to bite the bullet and go with the LGPLv2+ cascade
> on vasprintf-posix. So maybe the solution is an intermediate module:
>
> LGPLv2+ vasprintf - bare bones, guarantees a wrapper around system
> printf, so %zu and %llu are unsafe be
[re-adding bug-gnulib for another question]
On 08/18/2010 07:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 07:41:16AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 08/18/2010 03:04 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>>
>>> I find the PRI* stuff rather fugly. Can't we just use %llu and
>>> cast to (unsig
[dropping libvirt, for now]
On 08/17/2010 05:28 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> Here's where a cross-project change to GNU Coding Standards could be
>> helpful - if we all agree that gnulib should add the macro and gettext
>> should add the support for it at the same time, then it w
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:36, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 18 August 2010 08:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Syntax options are anyway not going to be supported by the POSIX API,
>
> That's why I mentioned extensions. glibc has many GNU extensions to
> POSIX APIs, both in the form of extended semantics
PING^2
are there more problems with this patch?
Thanks,
Giuseppe
> From da6e41d8ca204903cc088444b882d904db5e649e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Giuseppe Scrivano
> Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 15:40:19 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] read-file: Avoid memory reallocations with regular files.
>
> * modules
On 18 August 2010 08:52, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Syntax options are anyway not going to be supported by the POSIX API,
That's why I mentioned extensions. glibc has many GNU extensions to
POSIX APIs, both in the form of extended semantics of existing APIs
and new-but-similar APIs; I was wondering w
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 19:54, Reuben Thomas wrote:
> However, this does raise a more general point, namely the wisdom of
> spending effort maintaining the GNU API, rather than extending the
> POSIX API where it is deficient with respect to the GNU API. The cost
> of maintaining the GNU is relativ
11 matches
Mail list logo
