From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@port70.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general
Subject: Re: musl 0.7.10 released
Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:28:24 +0200
Message-ID: <20110518152824.GR6142@port70.net>
References: <20110518014947.GL277@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
 <20110518114947.GO6142@port70.net>
 <20110518123254.GM277@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1305732533 7265 80.91.229.12 (18 May 2011 15:28:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 15:28:53 +0000 (UTC)
To: musl@lists.openwall.com
Original-X-From: musl-return-88-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed May 18 17:28:49 2011
Return-path: <musl-return-88-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@lo.gmane.org
Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200])
	by lo.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <musl-return-88-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>)
	id 1QMig3-0004Lm-AD
	for gllmg-musl@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 18 May 2011 17:28:47 +0200
Original-Received: (qmail 1474 invoked by uid 550); 18 May 2011 15:28:46 -0000
Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:musl@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:musl-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:musl-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:musl-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 1465 invoked from network); 18 May 2011 15:28:46 -0000
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110518123254.GM277@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:5
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/5>

* Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx> [2011-05-18 08:32:54 -0400]:
> > have you reported the issue to the pcc developers?
> 
> No. I was planning to but haven't gotten around to it. If you or
> someone else would be willing to handle it I'd appreciate it.
> 

ok i reported the issue (or at least something related)
http://marc.info/?l=pcc-list&m=130573226614698

> > or can you show me an example where pcc is incorrect?
> 
> See src/internal/syscall.h
> 
> I haven't tried reproducing it with a simpler test case, but the basic
> issue is that the preprocessor does not suppress recursive macro

thanks