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


On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 08:31:03AM -0800, Kelley Cook wrote:
> > I don't think so.  I'm using coreutils-5.93, release apparently 3
> days 
> > ago, and it refuses tail +NNN form by default.
> > Of course I can use "_POSIX2_VERSION=199506 tail +16c" instead of
> just 
> > tail +16c and it will work, but that doesn't sound to me like
> "coreutils 
> > has already been fixed".
> 
> 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?

No.  GNU coreutils tail dosn't need to be the only tail that follows
POSIX 2001 spec.  _POSIX2_VERSION env variable is just GNU coreutils
feature, the standard only talks about _POSIX2_VERSION macro.

The best is IMNSHO do the configure check for both, and use the one
that works, we already check for cmp --ignore-initial etc. in configure.

FYI, the toplevel Makefile.in already runs the compare command
first and then does the optional warning/error, but perhaps in
a little bit nicer way, as it substitutes the cmp command
into the Makefile rather than substituting dependency of compare*,
maybe I should change it the same way (unless there are people
who explicitly use make gnucompare, make slowcompare etc.).

	Jakub


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