Re: Portability of fts() functions

[Ingo Schwarze <schwarze@usta.de>]

Hi Paul,

Paul Onyschuk wrote on Sat, Aug 09, 2014 at 07:09:23PM +0200:
> Ingo Schwarze wrote:

>> I guess what is needed is a compat_fts.h/compat_fts.c just like
>> for ohash(3).  I fear that won't be something that can be done
>> in a hurry, though.
>> 
>> So it looks like for the 1.13.1 release, it's probably to late
>> to fix the fts(3) issue, and systems not having it will have the
>> choice of either running 1.13.1 with "BUILD_TARGETS += db-build"
>> disabled (that is, without apropos/makewhatis)
>> or stay with 1.12.4 until 1.13.2 comes out.
>> 
>> Do you think that would be tolerable?

> For systems missing fts(3) I would say yes.  I would worry more about
> glibc scenario, especially if mdocml is packaged e.g. clean build on
> x86_64 system used by packager, where it could break otherwise, wasting
> someone's time.

Oh you mean if mandoc is compiled on a 32bit glibc platform with 32bit
off_t but more than 2 billion files in one file system or files larger
than 2 GB inside a manual tree, mandoc will compile all right,
but i may crash at runtime due to the broken fts(3) implementation
contained in glibc?  Did i get that right?

I'm not sure what i could do about that - both in the long term
and as a quick fix for this release.  What would you suggest?

> Using occasion:
> 
> In file included from mansearch_const.c:20:0:
> manpath.h:36:1: error: unknown type name '__END_DECLS'
> 
> mansearch_const.c is not including config.h before manpath.h, patch:
> 
> XXX
> --- mansearch_const.c.orig
> +++ mansearch_const.c
> @@ -14,6 +14,10 @@
>   * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
>   * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
>   */
> +#ifdef HAVE_CONFIG_H
> +#include "config.h"
> +#endif
> +
>  #include <sys/types.h>
>  #include <stdint.h>
>  
> XXX

Yes, Thomas Klausner reported that one, too, and i fixed it with
exactly that patch in rc3.

> I think configure script should be guarded against standalone
> execution.  Right now you can do "./configure && make" expecting usual
> behavior (if you forget about looking at INSTALL).  Since in this case
> ${CC} won't be defined, script will try running commands starting with
> "-Wno-unused -Werror".  All tests will fail, enabling all compat
> functions.

Indeed, that sounds bad.

I guess i won't change that for this release, though.  I worry that
if we are very unlucky, whatever guard i put in there might break
on another system that was already tested and may not be tested
again.

For the next release, i have to keep this in mind.
I might do some more cleanup related to configure, anyway.

> I also have additional question.  Are there any plans for providing
> man(1) command also?  This would make mdocml a possible, standalone
> replacement for groff and man-db combination (typical in Linux
> distributions).

I will address that separately.

Yours,
  Ingo
--
 To unsubscribe send an email to discuss+unsubscribe@mdocml.bsd.lv