[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs? |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:40:51 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.7.4 (Linux/3.1.10-1.9-desktop; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) |
Isaac Dunham wrote:
> > The test as it stands is "error out on unsupported platforms unless
> > user specifies to use slow method".
> > My proposal is "On unsupported platforms, use the slow method instead
> > of erroring out."
If we did this, nobody would report to bug-gnulib (or to the libc maintainer)
the need to port the functions. You would get a slow or buggy program
instead.
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> @@ -84,10 +85,10 @@ freadahead (FILE *fp)
> if (fp->state == 4 /* WR */ || fp->rp >= fp->wp)
> return 0;
> return fp->wp - fp->rp;
> -#elif defined SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS /* users can define this */
> - abort ();
> - return 0;
> #else
> - #error "Please port gnulib freadahead.c to your platform! Look at the
> definition of fflush, fread, ungetc on your system, then report this to
> bug-gnulib."
> + /* This implementation is correct on any ANSI C platform. It is just
> + awfully slow. */
> + return freading(fp) && !feof(fp);
> + #warning "Please port gnulib freadahead.c to your platform! Look at the
> definition of fflush, fread, ungetc on your system, then report this to
> bug-gnulib."
> #endif
> }
This alternative code is not correct. On a stream freshly opened for reading
it returns 1 where is should return 0 instead.
Bruno
- Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Isaac Dunham, 2012/06/10
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/10
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Isaac Dunham, 2012/06/11
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/06/12
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/12
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/06/23
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/24
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/24
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/25
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/25
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Philipp Thomas, 2012/06/25
- Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, idunham, 2012/06/17
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Rich Felker, 2012/06/18
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Eric Blake, 2012/06/18