-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/6/2009 5:01 AM:
>> However given that SIZE_MAX should be in stdint.h according to POSIX,
>> maybe it makes more sense to make sure gnulib's stdint.h replacement is
>> enabled when SIZE_MAX is not provided by the system's
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Pádraig Brady writes:
...
>> I suppose these should include stdint.h also?
>>
>> areadlink.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
>> areadlink-with-size.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
>> backupfile.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
>> fnmatch.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1
Pádraig Brady writes:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>> Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
>
> Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Right, it could be "GNU/Linux" or "Linux kernels? (.*)?"
cheers,
Pádraig.
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Pádraig Brady wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>>> March 2006?
>> The failure is probabl
On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Paolo
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Eric Blake wrote:
>>> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
>>> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
>>> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>> March 2006?
> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>>>
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Eric Blake wrote:
>> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
>> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
>> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
> March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is it?
>>> In summary
Eric Blake wrote:
> According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
> This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
> that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
>>> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>>> Which is it?
>>
>> In summary this is what fails:
>>
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
>>> March 2006?
>> The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
>> Which is it?
>
> In summary this
10 matches
Mail list logo
