[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem |
Date: |
Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:01:32 +0100 |
Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> This will keep me from releasing decl-after-stmt code in coreutils/src:
>
> This inspired me to try harder for an automated check for departures
> from C89. Here's a proposed patch that implements such a check for
> coreutils, and that fixes the departures that I found. This should
> supersede coreutils' patch-check rule, in the sense that it should
> find everything that patch-check finds, but I left patch-check alone
> for now (partly because it's faster).
>
> This was the patch I used to find the regex incompatibilities
> I fixed today in gnulib.
>
> Also, it relies on the gettext.h patch I sent to bug-gnulib a few
> minutes ago, in the sense that the resulting 'make distcheck' won't
> succeed unless gettext.h is also fixed.
>
> 2006-11-26 Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
>
> Fix some incompatibilities with gcc -ansi -pedantic.
> * lib/regex.h (__restrict_arr): Don't use the [restrict] syntax
> if compiling pedantically with GCC, unless it's C99 or later.
> Don't trust sys/cdefs.h's definition of __restrict_arr, either, as
> it mishandles gcc -ansi -pedantic as well.
> * lib/regex_internal.h (re_token_t): Don't use enum bitfields
> if gcc -pedantic.
> * lib/regexec.c (check_node_accept_bytes): Don't use auto
> initializers for struct if -pedantic, unless it's C99 or later.
Thanks. Good addition.
But that ChangeLog block is the one for gnulib.
Makefile.maint | 5 +++++
src/cut.c | 2 ++
src/date.c | 2 ++
src/dcgen | 12 +++++++-----
src/dd.c | 2 ++
src/du.c | 4 ++++
src/ls.c | 4 ++++
src/od.c | 2 ++
src/readlink.c | 4 +++-
src/seq.c | 2 ++
src/shred.c | 4 ++++
src/stat.c | 2 +-
12 files changed, 38 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, (continued)
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/21
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Matthew Woehlke, 2006/11/21
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/21
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Matthew Woehlke, 2006/11/21
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/21
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Matthew Woehlke, 2006/11/21
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/22
- Message not available
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/22
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/26
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/27
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem,
Jim Meyering <=
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Paul Eggert, 2006/11/27
- Message not available
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/27
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Bob Proulx, 2006/11/28
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/28
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Bob Proulx, 2006/11/28
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Jim Meyering, 2006/11/28
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Matthew Woehlke, 2006/11/28
- Re: coreutils-6.5: yet another C89 problem, Andreas Schwab, 2006/11/28