Hello,
* Eric Blake wrote on Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 10:40:25PM CET:
> On 11/12/2010 02:35 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> > On 11/12/2010 12:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> >> + s/^\([0-9]\{1,\}\(\.[.a-z0-9-]*\)\)*.*/\1/
> >
> > Surely that is a typo. The "*\)\)*" should be a "*\)*\)".
>
> Aargh - I
On 11/12/2010 04:13 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> What should we do?
> a) Patch the test so that it uses a readdir() loop to detect the absence of
> the file even when stat() pretends it's still present. Or
> b) Use an rpl_rename override that will make the unit test work.
It's long been well
Hello Eric,
Gary reported:
>>ix86 RHEL 5 gcc 4.1.2 (rename, renameat)
>>x86_64 RHEL 5 gcc 4.1.2 (dprintf-posix2.sh, fprintf-posix3.sh
>> rename, renameat)
I'm seeing the failures on Linux 2.6.18 systems:
test-rename.h:119: assert
Hi Eric,
On a RHEL 5 system I was seeing these test failures:
test-rename.h:119: assertion failed
FAIL: test-rename
test-rename.h:119: assertion failed
FAIL: test-renameat
In the way the test case is currently written, I have to read from the top,
100 lines of assertions, to understand w
On 11/12/2010 02:35 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 12:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> + s/^\([0-9]\{1,\}\(\.[.a-z0-9-]*\)\)*.*/\1/
>
> Surely that is a typo. The "*\)\)*" should be a "*\)*\)".
Aargh - I tested on one machine, but committed on another. Typo is now
fixed.
--
Eric B
On 11/12/2010 12:50 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> + s/^\([0-9]\{1,\}\(\.[.a-z0-9-]*\)\)*.*/\1/
Surely that is a typo. The "*\)\)*" should be a "*\)*\)".
* top/maint.mk (sc_prohibit_test_double_equal): New rule.
Based on a report by Matthias Bolte.
Signed-off-by: Eric Blake
---
Caught some bugs in libvirt, so I'm pushing it.
ChangeLog|4
top/maint.mk |6 ++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Cha
I've gone as far as I am going with this.
The allocation failure happens in _int_malloc,
but that is a 530 line abomination. Stepping
through that with "stepi" is ridiculous.
MALLOC_CHECK_ did not add any info.
valgrind merely reported that there were no allocations.
$ /lib64/libc.so.6
GNU C Libra
[adding bug-gnulib]
On 11/12/2010 01:24 PM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
> boostrap.conf lists gzip as build dependency. bootstrap then tries to
> get it's version number using a get_version() function that executes
> 'gzio --version' and tries to parse the result.
>
> The sed expression expects the ver
On 11/12/10 07:57, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 11/11/10 18:51, Bruno Haible wrote:
>>> Breakpoint 2, main (argc=2, argv=0x7fffdd38)
>>> at ../../tests/test-fprintf-posix3.c:97
>>> 97 return 1;
>>> (gdb) p repeat
>>> $1 = 0
>>> (gdb) p errno
>>> $2 = 12
>>> $ egrep ENOMEM $(find /usr
On 11/12/10 08:50, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Bruce Korb wrote:
>>> +#if !defined __GLIBC__ || (defined __cplusplus && defined GNULIB_NAMESPACE
>>> && !(__GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3)))
>>> # include
>>
>> This fails, of course, for GCC >= 5.0.
>
> You mean, GCC 5.0 will rein
Bruce Korb wrote:
> > +#if !defined __GLIBC__ || (defined __cplusplus && defined GNULIB_NAMESPACE
> > && !(__GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ >= 3)))
> > # include
>
> This fails, of course, for GCC >= 5.0.
You mean, GCC 5.0 will reintroduce a name mangling bug from GCC 4.2 that
Hello automakers and gnulibers.
Is anyone still interested in this feature? If yes, I have some
simple updates, second thoughts, and new ideas, for which comments
are welcome. If not, let me know before I start investing more
time on the implementation!
On Monday 06 September 2010, Stefano Latt
On 11/12/2010 12:26 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> * top/maint.mk (sc_bindtextdomain): Check for evidence that _()
>> will likely work.
>>
>> I recently debugged a situation in libvirt where a program had
>> not set up the i18n framework, therefore calls to _() were doing
>> nothing
On 11/11/10 18:51, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Breakpoint 2, main (argc=2, argv=0x7fffdd38)
>> at ../../tests/test-fprintf-posix3.c:97
>> 97 return 1;
>> (gdb) p repeat
>> $1 = 0
>> (gdb) p errno
>> $2 = 12
>> $ egrep ENOMEM $(find /usr/include -type f -name 'err*.h')
>> /usr/includ
On 11/11/10 18:58, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Bruce Korb wrote:
>> First patch changes the failing printf tests so that:
>> 1. ...
>> 2. the wrapper scripts detect "I failed on the first
>>iteration" exit codes and causes the test to be
>>bypassed with "exit 77" exit codes.
>
> But that means t
On 11/11/10 17:23, Eric Blake wrote:
> It's nice to provide a ChangeLog entry, either as a patch to ChangeLog
> itself or as the commit message (or both; if you use Jim's vc-dwim pacage).
True, hadn't dotted my "i"s nor crossed my "t"s yet.
>> /* The calling program should define program_name an
On 11/11/10 18:21, Bruno Haible wrote:
> 2--- lib/fcntl.in.h.orig Fri Nov 12 03:19:39 2010
> +++ lib/fcntl.in.hFri Nov 12 03:18:45 2010
> @@ -26,7 +26,13 @@
> /* Special invocation convention. */
>
> #include
> -#ifndef __GLIBC__ /* Avoid namespace pollution on glibc systems. */
> +
Jim Meyering wrote:
> You're welcome to push your fix.
Done, pushed.
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Doing precisely that was on my list of things to check:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2010-11/msg7.html
Indeed, that sounds very much like the same bug: 24.x days and Linux 2.6.9.
On 11/11/10 18:51, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Breakpoint 2, main (argc=2, argv=0x7fffdd38)
>> at ../../tests/test-fprintf-posix3.c:97
>> 97 return 1;
>> (gdb) p repeat
>> $1 = 0
>> (gdb) p errno
>> $2 = 12
>> $ egrep ENOMEM $(find /usr/include -type f -name 'err*.h')
>> /usr/includ
On 10 November 2010 22:41, Bruce Korb wrote:
> On 11/10/10 14:04, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> On 3 November 2010 18:56, Reuben Thomas wrote:
>>> I just noticed that this mail was sent only to me; I presume it was
>>> meant for the list.
>>>
>>> Perhaps someone who knows what posix-modules does could
Bruno Haible wrote:
> On a stock Linux/x86 machine I observe these test failures:
>
> test-nanosleep.c:78: assertion failed
> FAIL: test-nanosleep
> test-sleep.c:53: assertion failed
> FAIL: test-sleep
>
> It's a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 4 (Nahant Update 8)" machine
> with Linux
On 12/11/10 10:57, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On a stock Linux/x86 machine I observe these test failures:
>
> test-nanosleep.c:78: assertion failed
> FAIL: test-nanosleep
> test-sleep.c:53: assertion failed
> FAIL: test-sleep
>
> It's a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 4 (Nahant U
Hi,
On a stock Linux/x86 machine I observe these test failures:
test-nanosleep.c:78: assertion failed
FAIL: test-nanosleep
test-sleep.c:53: assertion failed
FAIL: test-sleep
It's a "Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES release 4 (Nahant Update 8)" machine
with Linux 2.6.9 kernel and glibc 2.3.4.
24 matches
Mail list logo
