olafbuddenha...@gmx.net, le Thu 04 Nov 2010 15:03:46 +0100, a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:41:35AM +0100, Manuel Menal wrote:
>
> > (I only changed the manual and ran the AWK scripts to update the
> > .c/.h).
> [...]
> > @@ -212,8 +210,8 @@ enum __error_t_codes
> > #defineEPROTO
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 03:52:02PM +0100, Michael Banck wrote:
> I think it still makes sense to remove that ED macro if it serves no
> purpose
Who says that amusing hackers is not an important purpose? :-)
(Especially in a volunteer project like this... See
http://www.oreillynet.com/onlamp
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:41:35AM +0100, Manuel Menal wrote:
> (I only changed the manual and ran the AWK scripts to update the
> .c/.h).
[...]
> @@ -212,8 +210,8 @@ enum __error_t_codes
> #define EPROTO _HURD_ERRNO (116)/* Protocol error */
> ETIME = _HURD_ER
Agreed.
On Tue, Nov 2, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:30:28AM +0100, Manuel Menal wrote:
> > On 02/11/2010 11:29, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > > Manuel Menal, le Tue 02 Nov 2010 11:20:27 +0100, a écrit :
> > >>> “Macros that begin with E and a digit or E and an
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 11:30:28AM +0100, Manuel Menal wrote:
> On 02/11/2010 11:29, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Manuel Menal, le Tue 02 Nov 2010 11:20:27 +0100, a écrit :
> >>> “Macros that begin with E and a digit or E and an uppercase letter may
> >>> be added to the declarations in the header.”
Manuel Menal, le Tue 02 Nov 2010 11:20:27 +0100, a écrit :
> > “Macros that begin with E and a digit or E and an uppercase letter may
> > be added to the declarations in the header.”
>
> I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think that means E[A-Z0-9]+ are
> reserved for error code macros. Only t
On 01/11/2010 17:14, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Roland McGrath, le Sun 31 Oct 2010 07:39:20 -0700, a écrit :
>> If ED is a problem, then it should just be removed. It's only there as a
>> joke. That said, my recollection is that POSIX does reserve all E[A-Z0-9]+
>> macro names to the implementation
On 02/11/2010 11:29, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Manuel Menal, le Tue 02 Nov 2010 11:20:27 +0100, a écrit :
>>> “Macros that begin with E and a digit or E and an uppercase letter may
>>> be added to the declarations in the header.”
>> I'm not a native speaker, but I don't think that means E[A-Z0-9]+
On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 7:49 AM, Pino Toscano wrote:
> > Although having a reserved, generic error code macro might be
> > useful(?), `ED' is a very generic identifier. For example, clang
> > uses it in many parts of its code, which makes the build fail on
> > GNU/Hurd. I think it's likely that we
Roland McGrath, le Sun 31 Oct 2010 07:39:20 -0700, a écrit :
> If ED is a problem, then it should just be removed. It's only there as a
> joke. That said, my recollection is that POSIX does reserve all E[A-Z0-9]+
> macro names to the implementation for uses. But I don't really
> recall if that'
On 31/10/2010 15:39, Roland McGrath wrote:
> If ED is a problem, then it should just be removed. It's only there as a
> joke. That said, my recollection is that POSIX does reserve all E[A-Z0-9]+
> macro names to the implementation for uses. But I don't really
> recall if that's so.
Considering
Hi,
Alle domenica 31 ottobre 2010, Manuel Menal ha scritto:
> The Hurd port of the GNU C Library defines an error code macro called
> `ED', which the glibc manual describes as "The experienced user will
> know what is wrong.". This error code macro doesn't seem to be used
> anywhere.
To be precis
If ED is a problem, then it should just be removed. It's only there as a
joke. That said, my recollection is that POSIX does reserve all E[A-Z0-9]+
macro names to the implementation for uses. But I don't really
recall if that's so.
13 matches
Mail list logo
