Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Martin Kühne
On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Bob Uhl wrote: > Anyway, consider the patch withdrawn. If folks are maintaining their > changes in config.h then it's obviously a terrible idea to obliterate > it. I wouldn't submit a patch that I think makes things worse for > folks. Because you

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Bob Uhl
Laslo Hunhold writes: > >> How come? At least in my own workflow, I've been surprised by an >> uncopied config.h repeatedly. My expectation is that if I change a >> source file (e.g. config.def.h) that config.h will be updated. > > config.def.h contains the default settings. Of

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 20:41:51 +0100 Martin Kühne wrote: Hey Martin, > Just keep your config.h and merge changes from config.def.h. > Why are you destroying a perfect system? just calm down. I think it was positive we discussed this here. This way, Bob saw the reasoning behind

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Martin Kühne
Just keep your config.h and merge changes from config.def.h. Why are you destroying a perfect system? cheers! mar77i

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Fri, 02 Dec 2016 11:58:07 -0700 Bob Uhl wrote: Hey Bob, > How come? At least in my own workflow, I've been surprised by an > uncopied config.h repeatedly. My expectation is that if I change a > source file (e.g. config.def.h) that config.h will be updated. config.def.h

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Bob Uhl
ACE writes: > > I would say this patch causes more problems than it solves. How come? At least in my own workflow, I've been surprised by an uncopied config.h repeatedly. My expectation is that if I change a source file (e.g. config.def.h) that config.h will be updated.

Re: [hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread ACE
Hi Bob. I would say this patch causes more problems than it solves.

[hackers] [st][PATCH] Make config.h depend on config.def.h

2016-12-02 Thread Bob Uhl
Currently, if one edits config.def.h one must manually delete config.h (or manually copy the former over the latter); this ensures that changes force a 'regeneration' (really, a copy). --- Makefile | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index

[hackers] [scc] Revert "[cc2] Fix the order of elements of decl" || Roberto E. Vargas Caballero

2016-12-02 Thread git
commit 93d75a07943f4352dfe617954341c0c7a0ffe532 Author: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero AuthorDate: Fri Dec 2 14:31:19 2016 +0100 Commit: Roberto E. Vargas Caballero CommitDate: Fri Dec 2 14:31:19 2016 +0100 Revert "[cc2] Fix the order of elements of

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH] xinstall: Fix broken memmove with -t

2016-12-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:54:22 +0100 Anselm R Garbe wrote: > Hi there, > > On 2 December 2016 at 13:34, Mattias Andrée > wrote: > > If it's actually need, the package could call strip on > > the binaries that fail, or the developer can call strip > >

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH] xinstall: Fix broken memmove with -t

2016-12-02 Thread Anselm R Garbe
Hi there, On 2 December 2016 at 13:34, Mattias Andrée wrote: > If it's actually need, the package could call strip on > the binaries that fail, or the developer can call strip > explicitly. If it's even possible symbols could be problem, > it's so rare that it wouldn't be much

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH] xinstall: Fix broken memmove with -t

2016-12-02 Thread Mattias Andrée
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:22:16 +0100 Laslo Hunhold wrote: > On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:50:20 -0800 > Michael Forney wrote: > > Hey Michael, > > > memmove moves a number of bytes, not pointers, so if > > you passed a number of arguments that is larger than > > the

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH] xinstall: Fix broken memmove with -t

2016-12-02 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Fri, 2 Dec 2016 13:22:16 +0100 Laslo Hunhold wrote: > We _must not_ use memmove here as we invoke undefined behaviour, > given the two memory regions overlap. Nevermind this part, sorry. I mixed it up with memcpy. Still, do we need this here? -- Laslo Hunhold

Re: [hackers] [sbase] [PATCH] xinstall: Fix broken memmove with -t

2016-12-02 Thread Laslo Hunhold
On Thu, 1 Dec 2016 22:50:20 -0800 Michael Forney wrote: Hey Michael, > memmove moves a number of bytes, not pointers, so if you passed a > number of arguments that is larger than the pointer byte size, you > could end up crashing or skipping the install of a file and >