Simon Josefsson wrote:
> but now there is a comment in both strnlen.c and
> strnlen.h. Should we remove one of them?
No. We keep the comment in strnlen.h because that's where most users will
look at (in case they are on a machine where "man strnlen" doesn't work).
And the one in the .c file, we k
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> Ok to install? strnlen is a GNU extension, according to libc manual.
>> There were some discussion regarding strnlen.h, but the patch below
>> has worked for me for a while. Any problems can be fixed later on.
>> It seems corre
Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Ok to install? strnlen is a GNU extension, according to libc manual.
> There were some discussion regarding strnlen.h, but the patch below
> has worked for me for a while. Any problems can be fixed later on.
> It seems correct to me.
Looks OK to me too. Except I would ad
(Old thread; I want to clean up my gnulib CVS tree...)
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Dave Love <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> It looks as if gnulib needs a strnlen.h which declares rpl_strnlen
>> appropriately (conditional on HAVE_STRNLEN) and it should be used in
>> files where
