[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Fwd: Re: [Platform-testers] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.12.1
Re: Fwd: Re: [Platform-testers] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd
Thu, 08 Sep 2011 13:15:56 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:184.108.40.206) Gecko/20110706 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10
On 09/08/11 10:17, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Markus Duft wrote:
> A simpler approach might be ok: add a test for existence of the
> _nomembers functions (in m4/jm-macros.m4), and then add code like
> this for each in system.h, inserted after the declaration of getgrgid:
> /* Add a comment here, justifying this, based on what you
> said above. */
> #if HAVE_GETGRGID_NOMEMBERS && ! HAVE_SETGROUPS
> # define getgrgid(n) getgrgid_nomembers(n)
> #if HAVE_GETGRNAM_NOMEMBERS && ! HAVE_SETGROUPS
> Please include a complete patch that I can apply with
> "git am FILE", per instructions in HACKING:
ok. setgroups is not needed here, as it something different. i have 2 commits
on top of current master now (attached).
i'll investigate on the long double problem some more. currently i think, that
it could be the case, that libc has been built with a compiler with 64bit long
doubles, whereas the current gcc has 128 bit long double (not verified yet
though). i'll have a look... :)
>>>> +#ifdef __INTERIX
>>>> +// very very broken long double "support".
>>> Thanks for the suggested patch, but what problem are you working around?
>>> Is this due to insufficient compiler support? Use a newer gcc?
>>> Insufficient library support? If that's it, then won't one of the
>>> gnulib's replacement functions work for you?
>> gcc is 4.2.4 and there is no chance to get a newer one to work
>> currently (i have big problems forward porting my patches). but i
>> /think/ it's the library support anyway thats broken. it seems to be
>> somewhere in the printing (fprintf, sprintf). if i run an unpatched
>> "seq 1 10", i get this:
>> mduft coreutils-8.12.193-d8dc8 $ ./src/seq 1 10
>> in , Bruno Haible suggested some test from the gnulib test-suite,
>> with which i can investigate the problem more deeply, which i'm now
>> doing (as time allows).
> Please pursue that first.
> If improving the printing or conversion functions in gnulib
> can solve your problem, then making changes to coreutils would
> be counterproductive.
>> diff -ru -x '*.o' coreutils-8.12.193-d8dc8.orig/src/chroot.c
> I suggested to use #if ! HAVE_SETGROUPS, yet you used #ifdef __INTERIX.
>> +#ifdef __INTERIX
> Using "#ifdef ANYTHING_HARDWARE_SPECIFIC" is best avoided.
> We prefer so-called feature tests like "#if ! HAVE_SETGROUPS",
> because then when some other system with the same problem comes
> along, rather than having to adjust every #ifdef like this:
> #if defined __INTERIX || defined __other_broken_system
> our "#if ! HAVE_SETGROUPS" just works.
> That is much more scalable from the software engineering/maintenance
> point of view.
>> +/* Interix lacks supplemental group support. A dummy, always successful
>> + * replacement is added here to avoid the need to check for setgroups,
>> + * just to support such a broken platform. */
>> +static int setgroups(size_t size, gid_t const *list)
>> + (void)size; (void)list;
>> + return 0;
Description: Text Data
Description: Text Data
coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd on Solaris 8, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/01
coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd on Cygwin 1.5, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/01
coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd on mingw, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/01
coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd on Cygwin 1.7.5, Bruno Haible, 2011/09/01
Re: Fwd: Re: [Platform-testers] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd, Jim Meyering, 2011/09/07
Re: Fwd: Re: [Platform-testers] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd, Markus Duft, 2011/09/12
Re: Fwd: Re: [Platform-testers] new snapshot available: coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd, Jim Meyering, 2011/09/12
- Re: coreutils-8.12.178-df9cd on Solaris 10, (continued)