Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

On Mon, May 09, 2005, Paul Eggert wrote: > Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > + myargv[[0]] = "conftest"; > > + myargv[[1]] = "-+"; > > This doesn't null-terminate myargv. D'oh ! > But I still don't get why the change is needed. It sounds like you're > assuming S

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > + myargv[[0]] = "conftest"; > + myargv[[1]] = "-+"; This doesn't null-terminate myargv. But I still don't get why the change is needed. It sounds like you're assuming Solaris 11 getopt might get fixed? But even in that case, the curren

RE: Build CVS (TRUNK) failed.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > From: Mark D. Baushke > > Given that I 'manually' generated the changes for the MVC files, I have > no objections to real versions of those files being committed. You might > as well commit the patch today. Done. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Ve

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

Derek Price wrote: >>>2005-05-05 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> >>> * lib/getopt.m4 (gl_GETOPT): Check for Solaris 10 getopt, and >>> avoid needless checks. >>> >>> >>Yes, this also works for me. >> >> > >Okay, one more revision, to actually check if the -+ registers as

Re: lockinfo

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Kendy Kutzner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-05-06T09:09:37-0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > > To be considered for inclusion in a CVS FEATURE release, you should > > provide changes to the doc/cvs.texinfo > > attached Comments included inline

Re: Build CVS (TRUNK) failed.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Conrad T. Pino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hi Mark, > > > From: Mark D. Baushke > > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 13:48 > > > > lib\unistd-safer.h should be what gets used. It was added via a GNULIB > > update, so it should be there. > > > > L

RE: Build CVS (TRUNK) failed.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Mark, > From: Mark D. Baushke > Sent: Sunday, May 08, 2005 13:48 > > lib\unistd-safer.h should be what gets used. It was added via a GNULIB > update, so it should be there. > Last night's test results build worked as did mine this morning. Mi

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 ...I know you already agreed... ...I just thought this was interesting... In fact, Solaris 10 is the one actually sticking to the letter of the POSIX spec here, not that I think that assuming argv[0] should not be processed is going to hurt the GNU v

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

Regardless, since using an optind = 0 is not specified as supported by POSIX, whereas optind = 1 is, and since using optind = 1 in place of optind = 0 in CVS would avoid this problem on all platforms and with all versions of getopt (supporting optind = 0 provides no additional functionality that I

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

On Mon, May 09, 2005, Derek Price wrote: [...] > I did read this correctly in your report. If anyone else sees a need > for an actual test for correct optind=0 behavior, then they are welcome > to write one, but I decided the point was moot at the moment since > detecting the "+" bug, just as val

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Kurz wrote: >Hi. > >One more clarification. Maybe one or the other missed my last comments >on . It was me, >who introduced the "'+' myth". Well, it is not a myth. I studied the test pro

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matthias Kurz wrote: >I do not think that this is a Solaris _bug_. - From the point of view of the GNULIB getopt.m4 tests, if it doesn't behave like GNU getopt, that is a bug. :) >I'd bet that every system that does not use GNU getopt will suffer

Re: lockinfo

Hi Mark, On 2005-05-06T09:09:37-0700, Mark D. Baushke wrote: > To be considered for inclusion in a CVS FEATURE release, you should > provide changes to the doc/cvs.texinfo attached > as well as at least a few test > cases (if you don't understand how to work with sanity.sh that is okay, > but we

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

Hi. One more clarification. Maybe one or the other missed my last comments on . It was me, who introduced the "'+' myth". I "analysed" the problem wrong in the beginning. It is not exactly the "+" that makes the problem, but the fact, that the

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

On Mon, May 09, 2005, Derek Price wrote: [...] > Okay, one more revision, to actually check if the -+ registers as an > option or not. This fits the autoconf paradigm of testing for the bug, > even if it is using AC_TRY_RUN. This way, if Sun fixes the problem in a > later Solaris release, we sho

Re: [bug-gnulib] Re: getopt and Solaris 10

Matthias Kurz wrote: >On Thu, May 05, 2005, Paul Eggert wrote: > > > >>Derek Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >>>I prefer door #2. Trivial patch attached: >>> >>> >>Thanks, but I'd rather use AC_CHECK_DECL, so I installed this instead, >>into both coreutils and gnulib. Does