From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/230 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: cluts comments Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 13:33:04 -0400 Message-ID: <20110803173304.GY132@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20110803170406.GP29562@port70.net> <4E398796.7080509@gmail.com> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1312393517 27571 80.91.229.12 (3 Aug 2011 17:45:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 17:45:17 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-314-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Wed Aug 03 19:45:13 2011 Return-path: 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 ) id 1QofVF-0004v8-7i for gllmg-musl@lo.gmane.org; Wed, 03 Aug 2011 19:45:09 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 24425 invoked by uid 550); 3 Aug 2011 17:45:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 24417 invoked from network); 3 Aug 2011 17:45:08 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E398796.7080509@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:230 Archived-At: On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 07:38:30PM +0200, Luka Marčetić wrote: > >alloc.c does not compile with glibc here > >it seems _POSIX_C_SOURCE is not enough for > >glibc to have SA_NODEFER in signal.h > >i guess that's a glibc bug.. > > Thanks for the bug, Szabolcs. I'll correct it, and also add the header. > Not sure why you get an error for SA_NODEFER though. It compiles for > me just fine with gcc version 4.6.1 (Debian 4.6.1-5) . I think he must be using an older version of glibc. It looks like they fixed it to support POSIX 2008 better sometime this year.. Since it's worthwhile to be able to test and evaluate regressions versus older glibc versions, please make an effort to support them too if it's not a big deal. (I thought the SA_NODEFER stuff was going to be removed anyway, though..??) > Well it is used more, I don't know about a convention... I do like > %i better (though I was taught %d - hence the omissions). The reason > why I like %i is that it implies the integer type. And that's what i > have in alloc.c. Yes, but %d makes explicit the base you want it printed in. :) I'd never thought of %i as being useful in contrase with %f in code that's mixing int/float and always using decimal, since I'm much more often using integers only and more interested in the base... Rich