Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?

On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 19:00:54 -0700 Paul Eggert wrote: > On 06/09/2012 11:05 PM, Isaac Dunham wrote: > > Is there any reason not to merge > > Performance, surely. But if there's > consensus that performance does not matter that > much with musl, perhaps we should default to the > slow version wi

Re: Slight typographical improvements to README-release

On 29 May 2012 16:01, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 05/29/2012 06:11 AM, Reuben Thomas wrote: >> I find UTF-8 to be a great boon precisely for making plain >> text more legible. > > UTF-8 is sometimes necessary and usually works, but even today > it fails often enough that I'd rather avoid it if it's >

Re: gnulib portability issues

On 06/11/2012 07:19 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > But if your goal is to read up until the next character in a > particular set of special characters, why not fscanf(f, "%100[^xyz]", > ...) with 100 replaced by your buffer size and xyz replaced by the > specials? Because fscanf() is broken by design.

Re: gnulib portability issues

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 07:14:56AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/11/2012 06:54 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > > >> GNU M4 (at least the master branch, although it has not yet been > >> released as m4 2.0) _wants_ to use freadahead, because it provides at > >> least a 10% speedup in operation. It _re

Re: gnulib portability issues

On 06/11/2012 06:54 AM, Rich Felker wrote: >> GNU M4 (at least the master branch, although it has not yet been >> released as m4 2.0) _wants_ to use freadahead, because it provides at >> least a 10% speedup in operation. It _really is_ more efficient to peek >> at the current buffer in one functi

Re: gnulib portability issues

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:13:03AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/10/2012 06:43 AM, Rich Felker wrote: > > >> Come to think of it, a variant might even work for seekable files. > >> Use dup2 to move the file descriptor somewhere else. Close the > >> fd. Keep reading until error, and count the

Re: gnulib portability issues

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 06:10:02AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 06/09/2012 10:25 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > > > While fixing the underlying freadahead function would be nice, it > > might be better to make sense of WHY it's needed/wanted, if it's even > > actually useful, and how to avoid the need

Re: gnulib portability issues

On 06/10/2012 06:43 AM, Rich Felker wrote: >> Come to think of it, a variant might even work for seekable files. >> Use dup2 to move the file descriptor somewhere else. Close the >> fd. Keep reading until error, and count the bytes read. Then >> ungetc all the bytes that you read, in reverse or

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: fix VPATH issues

Akim Demaille wrote: > Hi Jim! > > Maybe my question below was not visible. I'd like to know > what option you prefer. ... >>> I like to avoid using pwd, because it can fail (admittedly unlikely, >>> but...). >>> Did you consider just doing the "cd" and those four commands in a sub-shell, >>> ins

Re: gnulib portability issues

On 06/09/2012 10:25 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > While fixing the underlying freadahead function would be nice, it > might be better to make sense of WHY it's needed/wanted, if it's even > actually useful, and how to avoid the need for it in the first place. GNU M4 (at least the master branch, althou

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: fix VPATH issues

Hi Jim! Maybe my question below was not visible. I'd like to know what option you prefer. Le 8 juin 2012 à 14:59, Akim Demaille a écrit : > Hi! > > Le 8 juin 2012 à 14:20, Jim Meyering a écrit : > >> One question: >> >> ... >>> @@ -89,15 +110,23 @@ trap 'exit $?' 1 2 13 15 >>> # We must buil

Re: gnulib portability issues

On 06/10/2012 07:47 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > If you think it matters, __freading could be used instead. That doesn't sound right, since Solaris/glibc __freading returns 1 on read-only streams, whereas we want to know whether the stream has a nonempty input buffer; this is not the same thing. > Th

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: prohibit common grammar error: "all these"

Paul Eggert wrote: > On 06/11/2012 01:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> I suspect that some those (sic) instances are exercising poetic license >> (Shakespeare, surely) or merely demonstrate that this error is common >> in informal speech (Salinger's narrative). > > Sorry, but that's not what's happeni

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: prohibit common grammar error: "all these"

On 06/11/2012 01:05 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > I suspect that some those (sic) instances are exercising poetic license > (Shakespeare, surely) or merely demonstrate that this error is common > in informal speech (Salinger's narrative). Sorry, but that's not what's happening here. Certainly E.B. Wh

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: prohibit common grammar error: "all these"

Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: > () Jim Meyering > () Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:05:29 +0200 > >In your opinion, do any those uses in gnulib >sound better without the "of"? > > For short pronouncements, "of" doesn't flow quite as nicely: > . Hi Thien-Thi,

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: prohibit common grammar error: "all these"

() Jim Meyering () Mon, 11 Jun 2012 10:05:29 +0200 In your opinion, do any those uses in gnulib sound better without the "of"? For short pronouncements, "of" doesn't flow quite as nicely: . FWIW, same goes for Italian:

Re: [PATCH] maint.mk: prohibit common grammar error: "all these"

Paul Eggert wrote: > On 06/10/2012 12:56 PM, Jim Meyering wrote: >> Can anyone think of a common way to use "all these" that is >> not in error? > > Yes, lots: > > Tired with all these, for restful death I cry > -- Shakespeare, Sonnet 66, line 1 > > But Mary kept all these things, and pond