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

2005-05-10 Thread Matthias Kurz
On Tue, May 10, 2005, Matthias Kurz wrote:

 On Mon, May 09, 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
 
[...]
  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 current code will work, right, since it will use GNU getopt?  So
  this is just an optimization for the hypothetical case if Solaris 11
  getopt gets fixed?  In that case perhaps we should wait for Solaris 11
  and test it before installing this patch, as it's more likely to cause
  a bug than to fix one.
 
 Well, it might still fail on other OSes, that also do not use GNU getopt.
 They do probably also not have the getopt_clip. I'll check this on IRIX,
 today.

The vanilla cvs-1.12.12 builds on irix and seems to run. The included
GNU getopt is used. There is a getopt.h, but no getopt_long_only. Thought,
Derek's test for -+ would be necessary, but that's not the case. I do not
have autoconf and automake, there, so i cannot test the various patches. 
I'm running out of time. I have to quit. Thanks very much for your effords.
When there is something to test, i'll still try to help.


   (mk)

-- 
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
   Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) 


___
Bug-cvs mailing list
Bug-cvs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs


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

2005-05-09 Thread Matthias Kurz
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 shouldn't need to change anything.

I do not think that this is a Solaris _bug_. GNU getopt tries to do too
much when it reorders the commandline and therefor needs the + as a
workaround. I would not hold my breath to wait for a fix from the Sun
side. But then, as long as it works for me, i'm happy with everything.

 When cross-compiling, I fall back on looking for the odd Solaris decl to
 decide whether to use the GNULIB version of getopt or not.  If we wanted
 to be really pessimistic, we could always use the GNULIB getopt when
 cross-compiling, but I thought this could wait at least until we get a
 report of similar behavior from some system other than Solaris 10.

I'd bet that every system that does not use GNU getopt will suffer from
this problem. I don't know how many of them have a getopt.h, which
triggers the problem.

 Matthias, would you mind testing this version out?  If you could send me
 your config.log when you are done building, that would be helpful as well.

Yes, i'm going to test this asap.


   (mk)

-- 
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
   Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) 


___
Bug-cvs mailing list
Bug-cvs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs


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

2005-05-09 Thread Matthias Kurz
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 valid as a means of selecting the GNU
 getopt() over the system one, was sufficient to avoid encountering any
 other bugs in the Solaris getopt().

I agree with you.


   (mk)

-- 
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
   Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) 


___
Bug-cvs mailing list
Bug-cvs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs


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

2005-05-09 Thread Matthias Kurz
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 Solaris 11 getopt might get fixed?  But even in that case,
 the current code will work, right, since it will use GNU getopt?  So
 this is just an optimization for the hypothetical case if Solaris 11
 getopt gets fixed?  In that case perhaps we should wait for Solaris 11
 and test it before installing this patch, as it's more likely to cause
 a bug than to fix one.

Well, it might still fail on other OSes, that also do not use GNU getopt.
They do probably also not have the getopt_clip. I'll check this on IRIX,
today.


   (mk)

-- 
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
   Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) 


___
Bug-cvs mailing list
Bug-cvs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs


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

2005-05-06 Thread Matthias Kurz
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 it work?
 
 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.

   Thanks

(mk)

-- 
Matthias Kurz; Fuldastr. 3; D-28199 Bremen; VOICE +49 421 53 600 47
   Im prämotorischen Cortex kann jeder ein Held sein. (bdw) 


___
Bug-cvs mailing list
Bug-cvs@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-cvs