Re: Windows fixes for sockpfaf

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon Josefsson wrote: I'd admit that these winsock2.h tests are a bit ugly, but I don't see a good alternative. Ideas? I don't see a better alternative. The problem is that the replacement sys/socket.h is not available at the moment the autoconf test is run. We cannot change that easily.

Re: Windows fixes for sockpfaf

2006-06-22 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon Josefsson wrote: I'd admit that these winsock2.h tests are a bit ugly, but I don't see a good alternative. Ideas? I don't see a better alternative. The problem is that the replacement sys/socket.h is not available at the moment the autoconf test

Re: Windows fixes for sockpfaf

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Simon, Ok to install the patch? You're mentioned as the origin of the file. Sure. You don't need to ask me: I'm not mentioned as maintainer of this file in modules/*. Bruno

stdint module

2006-06-22 Thread Mark D. Baushke
Hi Bruno, Does this patch look okay to you? -- Mark ChangeLog entry: * lib/stdint_.h: A POSIX conforming inttypes.h already includes a superset of stdint.h on some platforms like SGI for both c89 and c99, but only provide stdint.h for c99. Avoid

Re: [bug-gnulib] system module?

2006-06-22 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Bruno Haible on 6/22/2006 5:37 AM: Eric Blake wrote: Is it worth adding a system module to gnulib that detects implementations with this bug, and provides rpl_system to work around it? How many programs will be ported to OS/2?

Re: Windows fixes for sockpfaf

2006-06-22 Thread Simon Josefsson
Bruno Haible [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Simon, Ok to install the patch? You're mentioned as the origin of the file. Sure. You don't need to ask me: I'm not mentioned as maintainer of this file in modules/*. Done. The M4 macro doesn't seem to belong to one canonical module, so I was not

Portablity bug in base64.c

2006-06-22 Thread Larry Jones
Some older preprocessors substitue macro parameter names that occur in character constants or string literals. This breaks base64.c since it uses x as a parameter name in a macro that has a 'x' character constant in its expansion. Here's a fix: Index: base64.c

Re: Portablity bug in base64.c

2006-06-22 Thread Ben Pfaff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Jones) writes: Some older preprocessors substitue macro parameter names that occur in character constants or string literals. This breaks base64.c since it uses x as a parameter name in a macro that has a 'x' character constant in its expansion. I was under the

Re: [bug-gnulib] Portablity bug in base64.c

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Larry Jones wrote: I've found at least one otherwise-c89 compiler that keeps the old preprocessor behavior in its default mode. Which compiler is this, on which system? Please don't hide your knowledge. Since it's so easy to avoid the problem, it seems worthwile to do so. It's not so easy

Re: [bug-gnulib] Portablity bug in base64.c

2006-06-22 Thread Larry Jones
Bruno Haible writes: Larry Jones wrote: I've found at least one otherwise-c89 compiler that keeps the old preprocessor behavior in its default mode. Which compiler is this, on which system? Please don't hide your knowledge. Sorry, it's IBM C V6 for AIX. Since it's so easy to avoid

Re: [bug-gnulib] Portablity bug in base64.c

2006-06-22 Thread Bruno Haible
Larry Jones wrote: it's IBM C V6 for AIX. I think they ship all kinds of compiler drivers, for several possible standards, so you can choose the most appropriate one. So the escape can be to use a different compiler driver. I've also submitted a fix to autoconf folks that will result in

Re: [bug-gnulib] system module?

2006-06-22 Thread Andreas Büning
Eric Blake wrote: According to Bruno Haible on 6/22/2006 5:37 AM: Eric Blake wrote: Is it worth adding a system module to gnulib that detects implementations with this bug, and provides rpl_system to work around it? How many programs will be ported to OS/2? How active is the EMX-OS/2

Re: Misleading cast in glob.c

2006-06-22 Thread Paul Eggert
Thanks for reporting that. Looks to me like someone just got frustrated by 'const' without really understanding it, and put in a 'const' everywhere they could think of. (Sounds like some of my students. :-) I installed the following somewhat more-aggressive patch, which removes eight uses of