Jakub Jelinek wrote:
http://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html#fragmented
You keep referencing the marketing pages of one of the formats comparing to
other formats, that can be hardly considered unbiased. Most of the
compression formats have similar kind of pages, usually biased as well.
Jeff Law wrote:
We've got far more important items to tackle than this. But if you
want me to bring it up formally with the SC I can.
ps. And just to be clear, I actually don't like xz and I'm always
annoyed when I run into something delivered in xz format. But xz
support at the distro level
Richard Biener wrote:
While openSUSE has it, SLES does not. tar support seems to be
via calling the external lzip tool (failing if that is not available).
You mean SUSE Linux Enterprise Server is using a format that does not
guarantee safe interoperability among implementations[1] to "power
Matthias Klose wrote:
I'm not commenting on the "inadequateness" of xz, but maybe it would
better help lzip to address some project issues and promoting it as
an alternative rather than appealing to the GCC steering committee.
It is not my intention to "help lzip", but to use lzip as a mean to
Dear GCC steering committee,
This has been recently asked in this list[1], but in case you have
missed it because of a subject line not explicit enough, I would like to
appeal to you directly.
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2017-06/msg9.html
Since 2017-05-24 weekly snapshots use xz compre
TL;DR. The xz format has a long list of defects, and at least some of
them are not minor. Please, don't promote such a defective format using
it in GCC. Thanks. :-)
R0b0t1 wrote:
http://lzip.nongnu.org/xz_inadequate.html
That article is rather interesting but unfortunately it does not
Hello Andreas et all,
Andreas Schwab wrote:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/coreutils/2017-01/msg9.html
In the above link I read the following affirmation by Jim Meyering: "I
found/find that xz is superior to lzip". But he does not back his
affirmation with any evidence.
Appeal to au
Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
Many useful warnings are outside -Wall/-Wextra because there were bugs
when initially implemented, users complained, they were moved out and
then either the bugs were forgotten or they got fixed but nobody
bothered to move them again within -Wall/-Wextra.
I am sure
David Malcolm wrote:
Does that bug fully capture the kind of issue you're seeing, or are
there other kinds of false positives? (I only see that single false
positive in ed-1.13, but you mentioned four projects in total).
The four projects are:
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/ed/
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/
[Please, CC me. I'm not subscribed to gcc@gcc.gnu.org].
First of all, thank you very much for gcc.
I am not an expert in gcc. Please, forgive any mistakes in this message. :-)
After compiling all my projects with gcc-6.1, I have received warnings
related to -Wmisleading-indentation in four of
10 matches
Mail list logo
