This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: 3.1.1 PATCH: Fix libstdc++-v3 isprint for Solaris 2.5.1
- From: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at TechFak dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:57:32 -0400
- Subject: Re: 3.1.1 PATCH: Fix libstdc++-v3 isprint for Solaris 2.5.1
- References: <15663.30846.104622.726700@xayide.TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2002 at 02:46:54AM +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
> The definition of print in the solaris2.5 ctype_base.h doesn't match
> /usr/include/ctype.h: The latter includes _B (i.e. 0100, a Blank
> indicator), while the former includes 0200 (i.e. _X, heXadecimal digit).
> The fix was tested by rebuilding and re-testing libstdc++-v3 on
> sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1: the only difference was the fixed testcase.
> Ok for branch and trunk (where the same fix applies, modulo the removal of
> the bits subdirectory)?
This looks okay for the trunk. Mark's call for the branch. (I'd vote yes,
since the bug and this change are only on a single platform, and it isn't one
of the primary platforms.)
> Sat Jul 13 02:15:14 2002 Rainer Orth <ro@TechFak.Uni-Bielefeld.DE>
> * config/os/solaris/solaris2.5/bits/ctype_base.h (ctype_base):
1) Aren't date formats supposed to be different than that?
2) "Fix" isn't a good enough description. :-) Please give future readers
a few more words than that.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater
than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek
not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you;
and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. - Samuel Adams