Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is it?
In summary this is what fails:
$ touch
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is it?
In summary this is
Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 10/06/2009 11:05 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
Also a minor nit in s/Linux/Gnu\/Linux/
Definitely not when it's talking explicitly of a kernel version?
Right, it could be GNU/Linux or Linux kernels? (.*)?
cheers,
Pádraig.
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Pádraig Brady wrote:
Jim Meyering wrote:
Eric Blake wrote:
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
The failure is
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Pádraig Brady p...@draigbrady.com writes:
...
I suppose these should include stdint.h also?
areadlink.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
areadlink-with-size.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
backupfile.c:# define SIZE_MAX ((size_t) -1)
fnmatch.c:# define SIZE_MAX
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Jim Meyering on 10/6/2009 5:01 AM:
However given that SIZE_MAX should be in stdint.h according to POSIX,
maybe it makes more sense to make sure gnulib's stdint.h replacement is
enabled when SIZE_MAX is not provided by the system's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Pádraig Brady on 10/5/2009 3:53 PM:
This is a new test, but FC5 is s old,
that I'm not sure it's worth worrying about.
March 2006?
The failure is probably a function of the kernel.
Which is it?
In summary this is what fails:
