Re: sigsegv.c: add OpenBSD/powerpc64 support

2021-09-13 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Bruno Haible: > The patch looks right; it is consistent with > https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/src/sys/arch/powerpc64/include/signal.h?rev=1.5&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup > . > But has it also been tested? The test procedure is to create a testdir of > this gnulib module: > [...] > Which tests p

Re: sigsegv.c: add OpenBSD/powerpc64 support

2021-09-11 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Paul Eggert: > Are similar changes needed for other OpenBSD architectures? No. The impetus for this was that the latest release of GNU grep failed to compile specifically on powerpc64. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de

sigsegv.c: add OpenBSD/powerpc64 support

2021-09-11 Thread Christian Weisgerber
gnulib's sigsegv.c has support for OpenBSD on a number of architectures. Currently, it treats powerpc64 the same as powerpc, but that is not correct and will not compile. Here's a patch to add powerp64 support: diff b6bae60d83eda6b168368fa40f42ade9dfc86df0 /home/naddy/tmp/gnulib blob - 998c82768c

m4/mknod.m4: minor portability fix

2010-11-09 Thread Christian Weisgerber
I noticed this in GNU tar 1.25 when FreeBSD's test(1) complained: Use "=" operator for test(1), rather than non-standard "==". --- m4/mknod.m4.origTue Nov 9 17:35:22 2010 +++ m4/mknod.m4 Tue Nov 9 17:35:32 2010 @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ if (!geteuid ()) return 99; if (mknod ("conftes

tar-1.24/gnulib: fdopendir.c C89 error

2010-10-26 Thread Christian Weisgerber
The gnu/fdopendir.c included with GNU tar 1.24 won't compile with a C89 compiler because it puts a declaration in between statements. --- gnu/fdopendir.c.origTue Oct 26 06:54:19 2010 +++ gnu/fdopendir.c Tue Oct 26 06:54:52 2010 @@ -116,6 +116,7 @@ fdopendir_with_dup (int fd, int older_

Re: gnulib-tests/test-stdbool.c vs gcc2.95/OpenBSD

2010-07-02 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Christian Weisgerber: > > How come that stdbool.m4 did not catch this? > > Oh. Hmm. This > ac_cv_header_stdbool_h=${ac_cv_header_stdbool_h=yes} > in config.site may cause confusion. Indeed. Without this bogus override, all is fine. -- Christian

Re: gnulib-tests/test-stdbool.c vs gcc2.95/OpenBSD

2010-07-01 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Bruno Haible: > Hmm. How come that stdbool.m4 did not catch this? Can you please look > for the values of STDBOOL_H and HAVE__BOOL in gettext-tools/config.status? > > $ grep STDBOOL_H gettext-tools/config.status S["HAVE__BOOL"]="0" S["STDBOOL_H"]="" > $ grep HAVE__BOOL gettext-tools/config.stat

gnulib-tests/test-stdbool.c vs gcc2.95/OpenBSD

2010-07-01 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Here's another issue I noticed while running the gettext-0.18.1 regression tests on OpenBSD/sparc (gcc2.95): In gettext-tools/gnulib-tests... source='test-stdbool.c' object='test-stdbool.o' libtool=no DEPDIR=.deps depmode=gcc /bin/sh ../../build-aux/depcomp cc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -DIN_G

Re: gettext-0.18.1/gnulib: gettext-tools/tests/lang-c++ fails with gcc2.95

2010-07-01 Thread Christian Weisgerber
: Fix syntax error with g++ 2.96. > * lib/string.in.h (__pure__): Remove definition. > (_GL_ATTRIBUTE_PURE): New macro. > (memchr, memmem, memrchr, rawmemchr, strchrnul, strnlen, strpbrk, > strstr, strcasestr): Use it instead of __attribute__ ((__pure__)). >