John Sonnenschein wrote:
> 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?
Normally yes. However in this case, I think since the "workaround" may
need some explanation, its not a bad idea to reference it.
> 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 the
>>>> ctf*-tools can be fixed.
>>>> My contributor ID is "OS0025".
>>>> Webrev follows later when my "hg clone" is complete...
>>> Webrev is now available at
>>> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~gisburn/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 get
>>> 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
> request-sponsor mailing list
> request-sponsor at opensolaris.org