The 'random_r' module is supposed to implement the glibc API. But
it fails to override the native API on AIX and OSF/1. Comparison:
glibc API:
int random_r (struct random_data *buf, int32_t *result);
int srandom_r (unsigned int seed, struct random_data *buf);
int initstate_r (unsigned int seed,
A testdir for the module 'random_r' yields this compilation error on MSVC 9:
random_r.c(64) : fatal error C1083: cannot open include file "inttypes.h": No
such file or directory
make[3]: *** [random_r.lo] Error 1
The reason is that while 'random_r' depends on 'stdint', the file includes
, which
On 12 January 2012 15:40, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
>> so where's the test with /dev/null?
>
> You didn't submit a test with /dev/null. If it makes sense to have one,
> please submit one.
Ah, I think I tried to make one, but it didn't make sense, because I
was trying to make a file that
On 01/11/2012 08:31 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> @@ -683,7 +684,9 @@ __strptime_internal (rp, fmt, tm, decided, era_cnt
>> LOCALE_PARAM)
>>++rp;
>> if (*rp != '+' && *rp != '-')
>>return NULL;
>> +#if defined _LIBC || HAVE_TM_GMTOFF
>>
Hi Reuben,
> so where's the test with /dev/null?
You didn't submit a test with /dev/null. If it makes sense to have one,
please submit one.
Bruno
On 01/12/2012 05:04 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 01/11/2012 04:44 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>> On 01/11/12 15:24, Eric Blake wrote:
+ best.len = 0;
>>>
>>> I have some qualms about adding unnecessary initializations
>>> merely to silence GCC. It's not just that it bloats t
On 12 January 2012 13:26, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Reuben,
>
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>> I find no tests for specific return codes from qcopy_file_preserving (grep
>> GL_COPY gives no hits in gnulib/tests/), and I can find no test
>> involving /dev/null (all instances I can find are redirections, no
Hi Reuben,
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> I find no tests for specific return codes from qcopy_file_preserving (grep
> GL_COPY gives no hits in gnulib/tests/), and I can find no test
> involving /dev/null (all instances I can find are redirections, not
> parameters to a test).
Yes, I added a test for whe
On 12 January 2012 12:55, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Reuben Thomas wrote:
>
>> On 12 January 2012 02:13, Bruno Haible wrote:
>>>
>>> - In copy-file.h declare the right function name.
>>
>> Ah yes, I must've missed warnings for this, sorry.
>>
>>> - In the tests I also had to drop the test with /dev/fu
Reuben Thomas wrote:
> On 12 January 2012 02:13, Bruno Haible wrote:
>>
>> - In copy-file.h declare the right function name.
>
> Ah yes, I must've missed warnings for this, sorry.
>
>> - In the tests I also had to drop the test with /dev/full, since - unlike
>> /dev/null - this device does not e
On 12 January 2012 02:13, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
> - In copy-file.h declare the right function name.
Ah yes, I must've missed warnings for this, sorry.
> - In the tests I also had to drop the test with /dev/full, since - unlike
> /dev/null - this device does not exist everywhere. Ex.: on OpenBSD
Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 04:44 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
>> On 01/11/12 15:24, Eric Blake wrote:
>>> + best.len = 0;
>>
>> I have some qualms about adding unnecessary initializations
>> merely to silence GCC. It's not just that it bloats the
>> runtime -- it's that it makes the code more co
12 matches
Mail list logo
