This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally

From: Paolo Bonzini <paolo dot bonzini at lu dot unisi dot ch>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>, kcook at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:41:46 +0100
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally
References: <20051109163103.40108.qmail@web81907.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200511091633.jA9GXNKt027394@earth.phy.uc.edu>

So wouldn't defining a POSIX_TAIL="_POSIX2_VERSION=199506 tail" and
using then using $(POSIX_TAIL) +16c be a more complete idea for bith
broken and non-broken coreutils?


Or better yet, error out with a broken coreutils which already happens
so getting them (coreutils maintainers) to fix this instead of hacking
already working sources is a better fix.

No need to vent. Just using

_POSIX2_VERSION=199506 tail +16c foobar

in the slowcompare target is the Simplest Possible Thing To Do, and it cannot be harmful.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally
  - From: Kelley Cook
- Re: [PATCH] Don't use slowcompare method unconditionally
  - From: Andrew Pinski

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]