On 03/06/2012 02:28 PM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> All this is perfect with me! Thanks for the work.
OK, I pushed the gnulib part, in your name. Here's the patch,
which I'm CC'ing to bug-gnulib.
This patch is made for the benefit of Bison.
quote does not leave the choice of the quoting style
On 03/06/2012 03:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Why not just strchr instead of building up an isdelim bitmap?
strchr would not be right, since '\0' is valid in data and
as a delimiter.
No doubt you meant 'memchr'; but using 'memchr' would slow
down readtoken by about a factor of two. I got this resu
Once the exp() function handled, the next one that can easily be dealt
with is expm1(). This set of patches provides the modules 'expm1', 'expm1f',
'expm1l', for platforms that don't have the functions or where they are
buggy. Notable bugs include:
- On IRIX 6.5: expm1f(-18) = -5.6295e14 (sho
[adding gnulib, since the code in question lives there]
On 03/06/2012 04:21 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Thanks, I agree that code is potentially buggy. I don't see
> any way to trigger the bug in coreutils, but it's just asking
> for trouble. Here's a proposed patch.
>
>>From 4954a3517397dadd217d6
On 01/25/2012 02:45 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
>> Has anyone noticed that test-lock takes a long time to complete on some
>> systems? On my laptop it is fast:
> ...
>> However on a otherwise idle machine with 2xE5520's (resulting in 16
>> virtual CPUs), it takes much longe
On 03/02/2012 09:35 AM, Heinz-Ado Arnolds wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a minor problem with the *static* building of coreutils. Building
> "timeout" requires libpthread in addition to librt.
>
> A simple patch is enclosed.
>
> Thanks a lot for your great work and kind regards,
>
I'm not sure if thi
On glibc systems, when special options like -D_POSIX_SOURCE are in use,
some math functions are not declared by . For example:
$ echo '' | gcc -E -D_POSIX_SOURCE - | grep cbrt
This works around it, like already done in many other math modules.
2012-03-06 Bruno Haible
math: Ensure
Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 02:27 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>
>> Then how about using "==" or ":=" to designate the assignment?
>
> That's too fancy. Plain '=' would be better.
>
> We can also support notations like '+700' and '-77' to
> OR-in or AND-out arbitrary masks. This would be
> a cl
