[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gc.m4 and hard failure
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: gc.m4 and hard failure |
Date: |
Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:36:28 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> Better, thanks. But
> --disable-random-device (--enable-random-devide=no)
> could IMVHO still be given a useful meaning, which it currently does not
> have. Since I don't actually use this code in any project, I can't tell
> you how realistic this usage case would be.
I'm inclined to fix this in the source code, so that
--disable-random-device actually end up disabling the use of just that
device. What do you think?
--- gc-gnulib.c 07 Mar 2006 14:14:40 +0100 1.17
+++ gc-gnulib.c 08 Mar 2006 10:35:01 +0100
@@ -109,6 +109,9 @@
break;
}
+ if (strcmp (device, "no") == 0)
+ return GC_RANDOM_ERROR;
+
fd = open (device, O_RDONLY);
if (fd < 0)
return GC_RANDOM_ERROR;
>> + case "${target}" in
>
> Why do you use $target? Are you putting this in a compiler?
> It'd be good to precede with
> AC_REQUIRE([AC_CANONICAL_HOST])dnl
>
> and then you really want
> case $host in
>
>> + *-openbsd*)
>
> *-*-openbsd*)
>
> You could also just test $host_os, and then match
> openbsd*)
> only.
I've changed it to use $host_os.
Thanks,
Simon
- gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/03
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/04
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/07
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/07
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure,
Simon Josefsson <=
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Ralf Wildenhues, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Simon Josefsson, 2006/03/08
- Re: gc.m4 and hard failure, Paul Eggert, 2006/03/10