Sorry to butt in here, but I was under the impression that code should
never make reference to the bug it fixes. Am I mistaken here?
On 2-Mar-09, at 10:05 AM, Roger A. Faulkner wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 16:20:44 +0100
>> From: Roland Mainz <roland.mainz at nrubsig.org>
>> Subject: Re: [request-sponsor] Requesting sponsor for CR #6799167
>> ("real gcc
> build fails in libshell") ...
>> To: "request-sponsor at opensolaris.org" <request-sponsor at opensolaris.org
>> >, Milan
> Jurik <Milan.Jurik at sun.com>, ksh93-integration-discuss
> <ksh93-integration-discuss at opensolaris.org>
>> Roland Mainz wrote:
>>> This is a sponsor request to "fix" () CR #6799167
>>> (http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6799167 - "real gcc
>>> build fails in libshell").
>>> =The "fix" is more a workaround since I don't know exactly how
>>> ctf*-tools can be fixed.
>>> My contributor ID is "OS0025".
>>> Webrev follows later when my "hg clone" is complete...
>> Webrev is now available at
>> ksh93_integration_cr_6799167_001/ -
>> can anyone give me a short code review for the change, please (we'll
>> file a new bug in bugster to make sure the original issues doesn't
>> forgotten) ?
> The code change looks good to me (and compiles for me).
> (I've been concerned about the not-buildable-with-gcc
> issue for some time now. I thought I was the only one.)
> Could you break the comment into more than one line,
> to make it fit in 80-columns, something like:
> * Allocate one extra array entry as workaround for:
> * CR 6799167 real gcc build fails in libshell
> request-sponsor mailing list
> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org