This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: intl patches (18)
Ulrich Drepper writes:
> 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
_tolower is nowhere documented. On those platforms, I don't want to
call an undocumented function even if it's more efficient.
> 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.
In C99, K&R syntax is valid, but "obsolescent". See sections 22.214.171.124
> 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.
It makes integration of gettext and gcc easier if there is no such
> patch13: where is ICONV_CONST defined?
In config.h, generated by autoconf. It is not needed in _LIBC because
the _LIBC specific code uses __gconv, not iconv.
> patch 14, 15
> If you want to maintain this (which you shouldn't
> since you are only supporting enemies of free software)
For Win32, I agree with you, but not for the others. DOS is an "enemy
of free software" just as much as AIX or Solaris - which we attempt to
support. And emx+gcc for OS/2 is entirely GPLed.
> 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. ... create
> a patch which adds to glibc's code only something like
> #ifndef SOME_MACRO
> # define SOME_MACRO default value for reasonable systems
> and uses of these macros
This complicates the Makefile or autoconf stuff a lot more than a