On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 05:58:23PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger
<[email protected]> wrote:
> > But yeah, it's off to blame netbsd for being the only one to not do it
> > sanely.
>
> I will ignore the rest as it is obvious that you don't even bother to
> check your facts. The BSD extensions are enabled in glibc as well by
Ugh. I don't know why you continously drag in XSI, POSIX or "ffs and
related functions" in this. This discussion is about popcount and popcount
alone.
I am not talking about POSIX (although you keep implying this) or ffs or
XSI extensions or whatever, I am taling about popcount.
Anything else you keep introducing is off-topic, nobody except you is tlaking
about those things.
Whether I chekc facts or not is not relevant, at least I keep to the topic
and don't try to confuse you with totally irrelevant stuff.
I did check my facts about popcount, which is what is this discussion is
about.
Your claims that I didn't check anything about the functions you mention
is true, but it's a strawmens agrument, because I didn't make any claims
about iany other functions.
> GCC is a completely different issue. As compiler it is not allowed to
> add to the namespace without the __ protection.
Uhm, this is against which law exactly? GCC can do whatever it wants. When
it wanst to claim ISO C compliance or just wants to be helpful for
implementers, then maybe it should not do some things, but "allowed" is a
weird word to use.
Note also that this is, again, totally off-topic, we are not tlakig baout
whats allowed or not: netbsd is certainly allowed to prove an environment
where no program ever compiles or runs.
But that's not useful. This discussion is about usefulness, and if _you_
would chekc the facts, then you would acknowledge that others handle
popcount gracefully, unlike netbsd.
And that _is_ a fact I checked.
> In short, NetBSD is as sane as glibc in this regard. The rest is up to
> the reader to decide...
And where, exactly, does glibc spill popcount into urxvts namespace?
Did _you_ check any facts? I actually did look at current glibc (and
eglibc) sources.
So get real stop your abuse - it's obvious that you are just making claims
and try to confuse. The facts are as I described them, and everybody can
verify that.
Sure, gcc and glibc also sometimes don't implement things as nice and
compatible as we want, but _fact_ is that in _this_ issue (popcount), they
did.
:(
--
The choice of a Deliantra, the free code+content MORPG
-----==- _GNU_ http://www.deliantra.net
----==-- _ generation
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / [email protected]
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
_______________________________________________
rxvt-unicode mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
