On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:22:40PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Ondřej Bílka <[email protected]> skribis:
>
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 05:27:55PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> >> With libc 2.22 people are starting to realize that libc does not
> >> guarantee that it can load locale data built with another libc version,
> >> but they learn it the hard way:
> >>
> >> loadlocale.c:130: _nl_intern_locale_data: Assertion `cnt < (sizeof
> >> (_nl_value_type_LC_COLLATE) / sizeof (_nl_value_type_LC_COLLATE[0]))'
> >> failed.
> >>
> >> This patch changes such conditions to return EINVAL instead of aborting.
> >>
> >> WDYT?
> >>
> > While that assert is quite cryptic I dont see why just returning EINVAL is
> > better. How do you distinguish that its wrong locale version versus not
> > installed?
>
> The rest of this function already returns EINVAL when something is
> fishy. This patch makes the behavior more consistent.
>
Then I take that back. But I don't see how this is reliable assertion to
detect different libc version. So could you as followup patch add
version field and check that instead this assert?
