On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:58:11 -0800, "David O'Brien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
That is (1) against Handbook documented policy, (2) too hackish (we
aren't Linux).
And who came up with that policy in the first place?
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
Peter Wemm wrote:
Argh... We are in far worse shape than I thought...
It seems that the "temporary" copies of the host tools like install etc
are getting clobbered by the non-version-bump of libc.
It is sheer luck that only the sed thing died before. It could have been
a lot worse.
Doug Barton wrote:
Peter Wemm wrote:
Argh... We are in far worse shape than I thought...
It seems that the "temporary" copies of the host tools like install etc
are getting clobbered by the non-version-bump of libc.
It is sheer luck that only the sed thing died before. It could
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
Matt Dillon wrote:
:
: This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you
: intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party applicatio
n
: that uses stdio will break.
:
:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:51:29 -0800, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The major number has already been bumped, I thought. If this is true
then we've only broken compatibility with older versions of -current
after the version number was bumped but before this change, right?
However, this
At 11:47 AM 2/12/2001 -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:51:29 -0800, Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The major number has already been bumped, I thought. If this is true
then we've only broken compatibility with older versions of -current
after the version number was
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 04:44:21PM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote:
This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you
intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party application
that uses stdio will break.
For -stable this would be true. We've already
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 11:47:04AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
However, this may turn out to be so painful that we need to bump it
again.
That is (1) against Handbook documented policy, (2) too hackish (we
aren't Linux).
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2001 at 11:47:04AM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
However, this may turn out to be so painful that we need to bump it
again.
That is (1) against Handbook documented policy, (2) too hackish (we
aren't Linux).
It's not bumping it
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
deischen2001/02/11 14:06:46 PST
Modified files:
include stdio.h
Log:
libc MT-safety, part 2.
Add a lock to FILE and define an additional flag.
This commit
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
deischen2001/02/11 14:06:46 PST
Modified files:
include stdio.h
Log:
libc MT-safety, part 2.
Add a lock
The new libc is incompatible with some old applications, but I'm not
too sure why. The lock was added at the end of FILE...
The size of FILE changed, thus the old application and the new library
no longer agree about the values for stdout and stderr:
#define stdin (__sF[0])
: The new libc is incompatible with some old applications, but I'm not
: too sure why. The lock was added at the end of FILE...
:
:The size of FILE changed, thus the old application and the new library
:no longer agree about the values for stdout and stderr:
:
: #define stdin (__sF[0])
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 04:44:21PM -0800, Matt Dillon wrote:
: The new libc is incompatible with some old applications, but I'm not
: too sure why. The lock was added at the end of FILE...
:
:The size of FILE changed, thus the old application and the new library
:no longer agree about the
:
: This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you
: intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party application
: that uses stdio will break.
:
: -Matt
Oh wait, is libc already bumped in current verses 4.2? If
Matt Dillon wrote:
:
: This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you
: intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party applicatio
n
: that uses stdio will break.
:
: -Matt
Oh wait, is libc already
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
Matt Dillon wrote:
:
: This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if you
: intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party applicatio
n
: that uses stdio will break.
:
:
:
:I cant help but wonder why on earth we didn't have it like this from the
:start:
:
:Index: include/stdio.h
:===
:...
Yah. I say commit it. Might as well, it can't hurt any worse then
changing the size of FILE.
Daniel Eischen wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
Matt Dillon wrote:
:
: This is a major change to libc. The library maj must be bumped if yo
u
: intend to change the sizeof(FILE), or every single third party applic
atio
n
: that uses stdio
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Daniel Eischen wrote:
The new libc is incompatible with some old applications, but I'm not
too sure why. The lock was added at the end of FILE...
It's very incompatible. I happened to compile make(1) with the new
stdio.h and the old libc.a (partly because unrelated
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
I cant help but wonder why on earth we didn't have it like this from the
start:
Index: include/stdio.h
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/include/stdio.h,v
retrieving revision 1.26
diff -u
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
I cant help but wonder why on earth we didn't have it like this from the
start:
Index: include/stdio.h
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/include/stdio.h,v
Peter Wemm wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001, Peter Wemm wrote:
I cant help but wonder why on earth we didn't have it like this from the
start:
Index: include/stdio.h
===
RCS file:
23 matches
Mail list logo
