From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1033 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: printf POSIX compliance Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 22:45:56 -0400 Message-ID: <20120609024556.GY163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120608144423.GN163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120608145519.GP163@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <20120608150618.GB17860@port70.net> <4FD22C6C.5040704@barfooze.de> <20120608193357.40fb538d@newbook> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1339210239 29200 80.91.229.3 (9 Jun 2012 02:50:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 02:50:39 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1034-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Sat Jun 09 04:50:38 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1SdBl1-0003HS-La for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Sat, 09 Jun 2012 04:50:31 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 15828 invoked by uid 550); 9 Jun 2012 02:50:31 -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 15820 invoked from network); 9 Jun 2012 02:50:31 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120608193357.40fb538d@newbook> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1033 Archived-At: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 07:33:57PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote: > On Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:46:10 +0100 > Reuben Thomas 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