This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: intl patches (18)
- To: Bruno Haible <haible at ilog dot fr>
- Subject: Re: intl patches (18)
- From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>
- Date: 19 Mar 2001 17:17:05 -0800
- Cc: libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com
- References: <email@example.com>
- Reply-To: drepper at cygnus dot com (Ulrich Drepper)
I've applied the patches now. Not all though.
I have applied
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 17 18
patch 7: _tolower might be as efficient with glibc but not elsewhere.
If I'd care about those platforms I wouldn't have applied the
The K&R changes:
I've applied them only because this is still current practice
in most GNU utilities. But we have to face C99 compilers hopefully
soon and then the K&R syntax is illegal.
Saying "we have to do this because gcc must be compilable with
K&R compilers" is *not* a valid argument. You can simply not
compile the NLS code if such a compiler is used.
I haven't checked whether no leaks exist or so. Again, I don't
care about non-gcc users.
Now for the patch I haven't applied:
patch12: gcc does warn with -Wstrict-prototypes, therefore this patch is
causing problems. Simply tell the affected people not to use NLS
before getting a better compiler.
patch13: where is ICONV_CONST defined?
patch14: too messy. I'm not willing to have any such crap in glibc. The
code is not intended to run on these degenerated platforms in the
first place. If you want to maintain this (which you shouldn't
since you are only supporting enemies of free software) create
a patch which adds to glibc's code only something like
# define SOME_MACRO default value for reasonable systems
and uses of these macros
patch15: see patch14
---------------. ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat `--' drepper at redhat.com `------------------------