Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols?

[Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>]

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 09:53:49PM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote:
> Hello Daiki,
> 
> 2016-05-26 15:09 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <ueno@gnu.org>:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> 2016-04-07 11:26 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <ueno@gnu.org>:
> >>> Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>> That is why I proposed to have a blacklist of "broken" implementations
> >>>> as an option.
> >>>>
> >>>> AFAIK there have already been some blacklisting in autotools e.g.
> >>>> checking the version of glibc to reject specific broken implementation
> >>>> of a function. Thus, I think it's acceptable to use a blacklist. What
> >>>> do you think about it?
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that sounds like a good idea.  But I guess we then need to collect
> >>> information about incompatible implementations.  In this regard I'm
> >>> actually not sure if the gettext-tools test coverage can be used as an
> >>> indicator of compatibility.
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >
> > I was wondering if there is anything could be done in the upcoming
> > gettext release.  Let's go back to the original explanation by Bruno:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-utils/2006-03/msg00011.html
> > where he states two things:
> >
> > 1. The purpose of the checks are excluding incompatible implementations,
> >    e.g., NetBSD (around 1.5?) and Solaris 7
> >
> > 2. The __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION macro is a recent addition
> >
> > In that case, I guess we could bypass the symbol checks if
> > __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION is defined, as long as broken
> > implementations do not define it.
> >
> > How about the attached patch?
> 
> It looks essentially good to me. You can remove the "if test
> $gt_api_version -ge 3; then ... fi" part before where you modified too
> if it is not used anywhere else, I guess.
> 
> Thank you for working on!

I haven't tested it but the concept looks good to me too.

Rich