Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> powerpc-apple-darwin8.11.0
>
> --- out 2008-10-25
> +++ exp 2008-10-25
> @@ -1,2 +1,2 @@
> -18446744073709551615
> +9223372036854775807
> 9223372036854775808
>
>
> FreeBSD i386-unknown-freebsd6.1
>
> + diff -u out exp
> --- out 2008-10-25
> +++ exp 2008-10-25
> @@ -1,1
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -Wl,--as-needed -o factor factor.o libver.a
>> ../lib/libcoreutils.a ../lib/libcoreutils.a
>> factor.o: In function `print_factors':
>> ../../src/factor.c:451: undefined reference to `debug'
Bob Proulx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gcc -std=gnu99 -g -O2 -Wl,--as-needed -o factor factor.o libver.a
> ../lib/libcoreutils.a ../lib/libcoreutils.a
> factor.o: In function `print_factors':
> ../../src/factor.c:451: undefined reference to `debug'
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
> make[3
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's a patch to remove the --bignum and --no-bignum options from
> 'factor'. The case for removing --bignum isn't as strong as that for
> 'expr', but still, it seems to me that these options are not needed and
> complicate the documentation unnecessarily.
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Here's the bug:
>>
>> $ seq 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775808
>> 9223372036854775807
>> 9223372036854775808
>> 9223372036854775809
> ...
>> We can't easily add the above test case, since it's not portable to
FYI, I've seen a few spurious test failures, so did this:
>From 407e8f0fdd74b04a266dafa01ca896779f7706a1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 16:30:54 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] tests: df/total: don't fail for an inaccessible mount point
* tests/df/to
Hello,
thanks for review and objections.
Paul Eggert wrote:
> Ondřej Vašík <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > - bool changed = (chmod_succeeded
> > - && mode_changed (file, old_mode, new_mode));
> > + bool mode_change = mode_changed (file, old_mode, new_mode);
> > +
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the bug:
>
> $ seq 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775808
> 9223372036854775807
> 9223372036854775808
> 9223372036854775809
...
> We can't easily add the above test case, since it's not portable to
> hosts where long double == double.
Here's a propo
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here's the bug:
>
> $ seq 9223372036854775807 9223372036854775808
> 9223372036854775807
> 9223372036854775808
> 9223372036854775809
>
> This is Debian stable x86, compiled with GCC 4.3.2.
> This worked correctly in older 'seq' versions.
>
> The problem is th
