On Mon, 10 Jun 2024, Rainer Orth wrote:
> I'd have loved to remove fixes that mention obsolete Solaris versions,
> but refrained from doing so when there was no way of knowing that no
> innocent would be harmed.
Doing so early in stage 1 (like now ;-) might be a good trade off?
If nobody reports
Hi FX,
>> However, please note that the comment states
>> * This should be bypassed on __cplusplus, but some supposedly C++
>> * aware headers, such as Solaris 8 and 9, don't wrap their struct
>> It's "such as Solaris 8 and 9", so there may well be others.
>
> I know, but that was 24 years
> However, please note that the comment states
> * This should be bypassed on __cplusplus, but some supposedly C++
> * aware headers, such as Solaris 8 and 9, don't wrap their struct
> It's "such as Solaris 8 and 9", so there may well be others.
I know, but that was 24 years ago, and I cou
Hi FX,
> The fixincludes fix “math_exception” is being applied overly broadly,
> including many targets which don’t need it, like darwin (and probably all
> non-glibc targets). I’m not sure if it is still needed on any target, but
> because I can’t be absolutely positive about that, I don’t want t
> :-D Looks good to me. EXCEPT I think the test sample file would need a
> change, too. I didn't see that.
Running “make check” produces the additional diff, which I’ll add to the patch
before I push. Does it look okay?
FX
diff --git a/fixincludes/tests/base/math.h b/fixincludes/tests/base/
:-D Looks good to me. EXCEPT I think the test sample file would need a
change, too. I didn't see that.
On 6/7/24 02:37, FX Coudert wrote:
The fixincludes fix “math_exception” is being applied overly broadly, including
many targets which don’t need it, like darwin (and probably all non-glibc
t
