Re: printf POSIX compliance

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:33:57PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:46:10 +0100
> Reuben Thomas <rrt@sc3d.org> wrote:
> 
> > As regards the particular problem with freadahead, looking at the code
> > suggests a workaround of -DSLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS to avoid trying to build
> > the FILE-fiddling code.
> Having looked at that code myself, I think there's some idiotic tests
> going on:
> #ifdef __OSNAME
> ...
> #else if __system2__
> ...
> #else if SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS
> //return 1
> #else 
> //build error
> #endif
> 
> 1. If I define SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS, it should be the first test.
> (if I run MINT and define this, assume I mean it!)
> 2. If it works with a stub, why do we get an error?
> 
> I'd suggest more-or-less this approach:
> -#else if SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS
> +#else
> //return 1
> -#else
> -//build error
> +//warn "falling back to stub, please port"
> #endif
> 
> Of course, I know this isn't the right place to discuss such
> things--that would be for gnulib. 

Actually I don't think it's very off-topic here. This is certainly a
major affected community that has an interest in solving the problem,
and Reuben seems familiar with gnulib and the developer community and
interested in helping us find solutions and get them integrated. What
is the next step we should take? Posting to the gnulib mailing list or
bug tracker, or contacting somebody directly?

Rich