Re: The diff should be clean now...

[Bruce Korb <bkorb at sco dot COM>]

"Kaveh R. Ghazi" wrote:
>         I've been trying for several days now and still cannot get
> clean diffs on _any_ platform I try. :-( I've tried solaris2.7,
> x86-linux, irix6.2 and aix4.1.  None of them check cleanly, and worse
> still they all complain about different things.  Some appear expected
> or harmless but I cannot say so for others.

:-(  Please send me some diffs so I can have a look, too.

> It seems like you went ahead and installed most (but not all) of the
> test_text additions I sent you, so somehow you are getting clean diffs
> but I'm not.  I don't know why.

It's really easy when you eyeball the diff and check in your own
version  :-).  The real question is why are my diffs appearing
different.  I went to the trouble to sort the file list so that
compare order would not be part of the problem.  Plus, I stripped
off the mod times.  I am, however, aware that the SVR3 version of
diff is too brain damaged to use.  Perhaps you are right and I
should add a shar archive of the expected output instead of
a "diff -cr" file.  Heck, it might even be smaller  :-).

> Another issue, the syntax and mechanism of the infrastructure appears
> to change every few days.  It makes it hard especially because its so
> poorly documented.  I have to redecipher everything too much.  I
> understand its under development and that's the nature of it.  But
> more communication or docs would help.

??  Not sure what you mean here.  I recently added two new c_fix
procedures:  format and wrap.  In the process, I added "arguments"
to c_fix-es and Zack wanted to use that mechanism to bypass the need
for wrapper procedures around the char_macro_* fixes.  He introduced
a bug that I fixed while making several new bugs  :-(  (I did
not have access to all the weird ways Sun permutes these IOCTL defines)....

> Another issue, there are still char_macro_def/char_macro_use bugs.
> I'll put together test_text entries for the failures.  Hopefully we
> can work together to fix these.

Let's go back to Zack's original fix.  I'm not sure how to cope
with:

+    test_text = "#define TIOCFOO BSD43__IOWR(T, 1)\n"
+                "#define TIOCFOO \\\\\n"
+                "BSD43__IOWR(T, 1) /* Some are multi-line */";

using regex constructs.  (By the way, there are two too many
backslashes.  You "only" need three.)  Gosh, that is ugly stuff!

> Sorry if I sound a little frustrated right now.

You sound so because you are so because it is so frustrating  :-).

> I still hope to
> continue helping with this mechanism since its so important to a
> platform like sunos4 which has many bogus headers.  I'm just a little
> frazzled after being unable to get this to work.

OK, go ahead and make any changes you deem necessary.
If anything you do creates a problem or issue, we'll work
it out later.  You're pretty careful and we work different
shifts :).