On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 08:34:23PM +0200, Marc Lehmann wrote: > On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 07:55:16PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > That was the discussion you linked to. > > *sigh*. _This_ discussion is about popcount, and the thread I linked to is > about popcount, too (as well as other things). In the message you refer > to I even *explicitly* mentioned that I refer to what you said about > popcount.
The topic of that thread is ffsll and friends. As can be seen by looking at the "Subject". popcount is mentioned in passing as following the same reasoning as ffsll and friends. It is also mentioned that they are in an extension header and therefore not visible for applications that require strict POSIX/SUS compliance. > > > I am not talking about POSIX (although you keep implying this) or ffs or > > > XSI extensions or whatever, I am taling about popcount. > > > > If you are not talking about POSIX, what are you complaining out then? > > Wow, finally some progress: I am just saying that blaming others for > things you broke is bad, and your behaviour is arrogant. > > You dragged in the whole POSIX issue, not me. Likewise for GCC, glibc, ffs > etc. And no, I have no clue why you would do that, except if you simply > did not read my e-mail, which you kind of confessed... You are ranting about headers adding content to the default namespace. That is something which has been done on UNIX approximately forever. ANSI/ISO C and POSIX provide a mechanism for applications to not have to deal with that. You decide to not use that. Your fault, not mine. What Roy asked for is checking for the presence and handling it accordingly. What I said was to request the desired namespace explicitly if you do not want to deal with platform specific extentions. You ignored both and just went on insulting people. Sorry, but who is being arrogant here? > > that are logically related to bit or string functions. Would you > > complain the same about introducing a function called memmem? Because > > that is what this boils down to. > > Except that memmem is a POSIX symbol for over a decade or so now :) > (1003.1-2008 2.2.2, but see also earlier versions). You must have different documents than I can't find any reference to memmem in SUSv2, SUSv3 or POSIX 2008. Joerg _______________________________________________ rxvt-unicode mailing list [email protected] http://lists.schmorp.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rxvt-unicode
