pthread_spin_lock_t static initialization

2019-02-04 Thread Yann Droneaud
Hi folks, I've recently made use of POSIX thread's spin locks and found there was no static initializer for them in the Open Group specification. Condition variables, Mutexes, Read/write locks, all have a static initializer: - pthread_cond_t PTHREAD_COND_INITIALIZER - pthread_mutex_t

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001170]: Error indicator for stream on encoding errors may conflict with ISO C

2019-02-04 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been CLOSED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1170 == Reported By:dalias Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016)/Issue7+TC2 0001169]: Redundant statement that ftruncate() fails on directories

2019-02-04 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been RESOLVED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1169 == Reported By:geoffclare Assigned To:

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0001168]: Issue #537 wrongly decided

2019-02-04 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been CLOSED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1168 == Reported By:nico Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0001168]: Issue #537 wrongly decided

2019-02-04 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
A NOTE has been added to this issue. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1168 == Reported By:nico Assigned To:ajosey

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0000537]: for set -e, compound commands and functions case should be clarified

2019-02-04 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been set PARENT OF issue 0001168. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=537 == Reported By:melkov Assigned To:

[1003.1(2008)/Issue 7 0001168]: Issue #537 wrongly decided

2019-02-04 Thread Austin Group Bug Tracker
The following issue has been set CHILD OF issue 537. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1168 == Reported By:nico Assigned To:

Re: [1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0000953]: Alias expansion is under-specified

2019-02-04 Thread Geoff Clare
Harald van Dijk wrote, on 01 Feb 2019: > > On 01/02/2019 09:53, Geoff Clare wrote: > >I agree that's an improvement, but I see one slight problem with it: it > >says "tokens previously read from the input" but the previous tokens > >could have come from an alias substitution. Here's an attempt