update-copyright self-tests bug

2011-11-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
This problem came up for Libidn but it seems to be a problem with the update-copyright self check, it fails under Cygwin. * Cygwin 1.7.9 Fails already in the gnulib tests: 1 of 36 tests failed --- - 2011-11-23 01:13:33.194375000 +0100 +++ update-copyright.test-ex-stderr 2011-11-23

Re: update-copyright self-tests bug

2011-11-25 Thread Jim Meyering
Simon Josefsson wrote: This problem came up for Libidn but it seems to be a problem with the update-copyright self check, it fails under Cygwin. * Cygwin 1.7.9 Fails already in the gnulib tests: 1 of 36 tests failed --- -2011-11-23 01:13:33.194375000 +0100 +++

Re: update-copyright self-tests bug

2011-11-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net writes: Hi Simon, It looks like somehow perl is being run with -pi.bak. However, here's a patch that should avoid that: Thank you! I'll re-enable the self-test in libidn and proceed with the release process... test-update-copyright.sh that creates them, so I

Re: update-copyright self-tests bug

2011-11-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
Simon Josefsson si...@josefsson.org writes: Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net writes: Hi Simon, It looks like somehow perl is being run with -pi.bak. However, here's a patch that should avoid that: Thank you! I'll re-enable the self-test in libidn and proceed with the release process... I

Re: update-copyright self-tests bug

2011-11-25 Thread Jim Meyering
Simon Josefsson wrote: Jim Meyering j...@meyering.net writes: Hi Simon, It looks like somehow perl is being run with -pi.bak. However, here's a patch that should avoid that: Thank you! I'll re-enable the self-test in libidn and proceed with the release process... Pushed.

Re: libidn 1.23

2011-11-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
This also came up for Libidn, it is using the latest gnulib. * mingw with gcc Fails already in the gnulib tests: FAIL: test-binary-io.sh I have not seen this test fail before. Bruno, I noticed you had written that self-test, could you add some printf's at various places (or single step it

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] util: fix thinko in runIO

2011-11-25 Thread Eric Blake
[adding bug-gnulib; replies can drop libvirt] On 11/25/2011 05:51 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: Indeed; Linux has posix_memalign, and mingw never runs the io helper (although it does compile it, hence the #if). If gnulib would give us posix_memalign on mingw, we could nuke this #if altogether.

Re: [gnu-prog-discuss] U+2018 symbol U+2019

2011-11-25 Thread Paolo Bonzini
[Cc bug-gnulib/gettext/standards/texinfo, Bcc gnu-prog-discuss] On 11/25/2011 02:51 PM, Thien-Thi Nguyen wrote: GNU programs are urged to use `symbol' (grave, symbol, apostrophe) in README, Texinfo uses those to implement @code in Info files, etc. I propose GNU adopt U+2018 symbol U+2019

Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] util: fix thinko in runIO

2011-11-25 Thread Peter O'Gorman
On 11/25/2011 07:38 AM, Eric Blake wrote: [adding bug-gnulib; replies can drop libvirt] Providing a posix_memalign_free defeats the purpose - POSIX requires that plain free() will cover the memory returned by posix_memalign. The list of platforms missing posix_memalign is a bit daunting:

Re: update-copyright self-tests bug

2011-11-25 Thread Bruno Haible
Jim Meyering wrote: It looks like somehow perl is being run with -pi.bak. Yes, apparently this is the cause. The .bak suffix appears to be the default. I have not specified it through environment variables. $ ls -l foo3* -rw-r--r-- 1 bruno Kein 73 Nov 25 21:46 foo3.c $ perl -pi -e s/x/x/

Re: posix_memalign

2011-11-25 Thread Bruno Haible
[Dropping libvir-list] Eric Blake wrote: If gnulib would give us posix_memalign on mingw, we could nuke this #if altogether. That's pretty difficult (unless you also add a posix_memalign_free) because at the time posix_memalign returns you have lost the base pointer for free().

Re: posix_memalign, valloc

2011-11-25 Thread Bruno Haible
[Dropping libvir-list] Peter O'Gorman wrote: Many of these systems have valloc(3) which could be used for this purpose. Yes, but gnulib's pagealign_alloc() function is less wasteful that the valloc() function that some systems have. E.g. in OpenBSD: void * valloc(size_t i) { long