Re: [PATCH] testsuite for poll(2)

2008-09-16 Thread Yoann Vandoorselaere
Le lundi 15 septembre 2008 à 21:21 +0200, Paolo Bonzini a écrit : The poll-tests module that is now available in the GnuLib repository currently fail on OpenBSD: Unconnected socket test... failed (huh, connect succeeded?) Connected sockets test... failed (huh, connect succeeded?)

Re: [PATCH] testsuite for poll(2)

2008-09-16 Thread Paolo Bonzini
Yoann Vandoorselaere wrote: Le lundi 15 septembre 2008 à 21:21 +0200, Paolo Bonzini a écrit : The poll-tests module that is now available in the GnuLib repository currently fail on OpenBSD: Unconnected socket test... failed (huh, connect succeeded?) Connected sockets test... failed (huh,

Re: [PATCH] posix-shell.m4: reject Solaris 11's /bin/sh (due to umask)

2008-09-16 Thread Jim Meyering
Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I discovered that Solaris 11's /bin/sh exhibits the following surprising behavior: $ /bin/sh -c 'umask 22; (umask 0); umask' That would cause test failures in coreutils, because gl_POSIX_SHELL accepted /bin/sh. The following change is

Re: [PATCH] testsuite for poll(2)

2008-09-16 Thread Paolo Bonzini
This solved the 'unconnected socket test': Unconnected socket test... passed Connected sockets test... failed (expecting POLLHUP after shutdown) General socket test with fork... failed (expecting POLLHUP after shutdown) Yes, it was not meant to fix the others. Paolo

Re: please add scandir, alphasort, versionsort

2008-09-16 Thread Bruno Haible
Michael Haubenwallner wrote: Can I help somehow? Eric is right: First, you need to submit a copyright assignment for your gnulib contributions to the FSF. Then, since these functions are pretty OS independent, you could take their glibc implementation, add a module description, an autoconf

Re: [PATCH] posix-shell.m4: reject Solaris 11's /bin/sh (due to umask)

2008-09-16 Thread Eric Blake
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 According to Jim Meyering on 9/16/2008 3:58 AM: Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I discovered that Solaris 11's /bin/sh exhibits the following surprising behavior: $ /bin/sh -c 'umask 22; (umask 0); umask' We should also

Re: [PATCH] posix-shell.m4: reject Solaris 11's /bin/sh (due to umask)

2008-09-16 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Eric Blake wrote: According to Jim Meyering on 9/16/2008 3:58 AM: Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I discovered that Solaris 11's /bin/sh exhibits the following surprising behavior: $ /bin/sh -c 'umask 22; (umask 0); umask' We should also document this in the autoconf

Re: [PATCH] posix-shell.m4: reject Solaris 11's /bin/sh (due to umask)

2008-09-16 Thread Jim Meyering
Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Blake wrote: According to Jim Meyering on 9/16/2008 3:58 AM: Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I discovered that Solaris 11's /bin/sh exhibits the following surprising behavior: $ /bin/sh -c 'umask 22; (umask 0); umask' We

Re: [PATCH] posix-shell.m4: reject Solaris 11's /bin/sh (due to umask)

2008-09-16 Thread Peter O'Gorman
Jim Meyering wrote: Peter O'Gorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eric Blake wrote: According to Jim Meyering on 9/16/2008 3:58 AM: Jim Meyering [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I discovered that Solaris 11's /bin/sh exhibits the following surprising behavior: $ /bin/sh -c 'umask 22; (umask 0);

vasnprintf(-0.0L) on Irix [was: snapshot in preparation for m4 1.4.12]

2008-09-16 Thread Eric Blake
Bruno Haible bruno at clisp.org writes: the system sprintf does not know how to print -0, so the result is 0.00 and lacks -. Does it make more sense to adjust the existing gl_PRINTF_INFINITE_LONG_DOUBLE (which also tests for NaN) to add a test for negative zero, or to add a new

c-stack and Irix

2008-09-16 Thread Eric Blake
I've finally figured out why c-stack is being finicky on Irix 5.3 [1]. POSIX requires that sigaltstack be given ss_sp pointing to the smallest address in the alternate stack. But Irix is non-compliant, and treats ss_sp as the starting address of the stack (which, since it grows down, makes it