Re: [PATCH] Port to 32-bit long + 64-bit time_t

2022-09-21 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 17:58:20 -0700 > Cc: bug-make@gnu.org > From: Paul Eggert > > On 9/20/22 18:48, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote: > > I am sorry to say that the %j prefix is not safe or portable. There are > > major production platforms where this is not supported. I work on one of > > them.

Re: [PATCH] Port to 32-bit long + 64-bit time_t

2022-09-21 Thread Eli Zaretskii
> From: > Cc: > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 21:01:58 -0400 > > On September 21, 2022 8:58 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: > >On 9/20/22 18:48, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote: > >> I am sorry to say that the %j prefix is not safe or portable. There > >> are major production platforms where this is not supported.

RE: [PATCH] Port to 32-bit long + 64-bit time_t

2022-09-21 Thread rsbecker
On September 21, 2022 8:58 PM, Paul Eggert wrote: >On 9/20/22 18:48, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote: >> I am sorry to say that the %j prefix is not safe or portable. There >> are major production platforms where this is not supported. I work on >> one of them. > >Which platform and version? I'd like

Re: [PATCH] Port to 32-bit long + 64-bit time_t

2022-09-21 Thread Paul Eggert
On 9/20/22 18:48, rsbec...@nexbridge.com wrote: I am sorry to say that the %j prefix is not safe or portable. There are major production platforms where this is not supported. I work on one of them. Which platform and version? I'd like to document this in Gnulib. Some other GNU programs are us

Re: [PATCH] Pacify GCC -Wsign-compare

2022-09-21 Thread Paul Eggert
On 9/21/22 16:11, Sam James wrote: For these, could you consider including the full version? Sure, revised patch attached.From 83808d17d9fd28166ca174d522441edea3257804 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Paul Eggert Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 14:00:34 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Pacify GCC -Wsign-compare *

Re: [PATCH] Pacify GCC -Wsign-compare

2022-09-21 Thread Sam James
> On 20 Sep 2022, at 22:19, Paul Eggert wrote: > > * src/arscan.c (ar_scan): Pacify GCC 12.2.1 -Wsign-compare by copying > an unsigned value into a signed variable before comparing it. > Make sure it is in range before copying. > --- For these, could you consider including the full version? "1

Re: [bug #63070] posix_spawn fails to run a child process.

2022-09-21 Thread Edward Welbourne
Alejandro Colomar (21 September 2022 11:46) >> If the function is returning 0, there's no error, and errno shouldn't be read > I guess you maybe didn't state it here as obvious, but to me it's not by > reading the conversation: Apart from posix_spawn(3) returning 0 and setting > errno to ENOEXEC,

[bug #63070] posix_spawn fails to run a child process.

2022-09-21 Thread Alejandro Colomar
Follow-up Comment #14, bug #63070 (project make): [comment #10 comment #10:] > In glibc-2.17 posix_spawn returns 0 whether POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK is set or not. > When POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK is not set posix_spawn returns 0 and errno is 0. > When POSIX_SPAWN_USEVFORK is set posix_spawn returns 0 and e