Simon Josefsson writes:
> Anyway, I guess we'll find out eventually if someone reports a problem
> for mingw. I'll try a Windows XP mingw gnulib boot now, it was a long
> time ago since I tried it.
I meant a cygwin build.. Here is the build log:
http://autobuild.josefsson.org/gnulib/log-20110
Hello,
k...@freefriends.org (Karl Berry) skribis:
> I am aware that conceptually there is no PATH_MAX on Hurd and no
> requirement for it to be a smallish constant, but it seems to me that
> any real-world system has to define PATH_MAX as a reasonable constant
> simply for compatibility with all
Paul Eggert writes:
> On 06/30/11 04:45, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Is it native Windows or MinGW?
>
> Sorry, I don't know Windows well enough to answer that question.
> For Emacs, Windows support is done completely differently:
> it doesn't use gnulib, and it is done by other people, and I
> try
Newer mingw (but not yet mingw64) provides two flavors of
snprintf: _snprintf defers straight to msvcrt, which has broken
return value and does not understand %llu or %zu; and snprintf,
which fixes these two bugs but does not understand %1$s.
Libintl specifically favors _snprintf, with broken retu
On 07/01/2011 07:50 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> But now we have a problem - if gnulib did _not_ replace snprintf because
> it probed the mingw version and found that the return value was correct,
> then the libintl override violates gnulib's assumptions. If gnulib
> _does_ replace snprintf, but does n
On 07/01/2011 07:06 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Why is libintl's [v]snprintf broken on mingw? Even if libintl is
> compiled against an older mingw where there is no mingw snprintf
> replacement, it seems like libintl should be honoring the correct return
> values.
It is because libintl on mingw is sp
[adding bug-gnulib, bug-gnu-libiconv]
On 07/01/2011 04:50 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
> 2011/6/30 Eric Blake :
>> On 06/30/2011 12:00 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> Gnulib documents that mingw [v]snprintf is broken (it returns -1
>>> on out-of-space, instead of the count of what would have been
>>> print
