From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/10054 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring internal symbols? Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 15:36:58 -0400 Message-ID: <20160526193658.GA21636@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: 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: ger.gmane.org 1464291452 11525 80.91.229.3 (26 May 2016 19:37:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 19:37:32 +0000 (UTC) Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com, bug-gnu-gettext@gnu.org To: Masanori Ogino Original-X-From: musl-return-10067-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu May 26 21:37:22 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1b615q-0004NW-1h for gllmg-musl@m.gmane.org; Thu, 26 May 2016 21:37:18 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 30314 invoked by uid 550); 26 May 2016 19:37:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Original-Received: (qmail 30264 invoked from network); 26 May 2016 19:37:14 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Original-Sender: Rich Felker Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:10054 Archived-At: 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 : > > Hello, > > > > Masanori Ogino writes: > > > >> 2016-04-07 11:26 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno : > >>> Masanori Ogino 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