bug-gnulib
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: isnanl, printf, and non-IEEE values


From: Jim Meyering
Subject: Re: isnanl, printf, and non-IEEE values
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:15:59 +0200

Eric Blake wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 06:51 AM, John Spencer wrote:
>> *sigh*.
>> talking to you guys is like talking to a wall.
>
> Please don't swear.  This is a publicly archived list, and you are
> coming across rather offensive.  A positive attitude is more likely to
> foster cooperation than berating others.
>
>>> There's no force here.  The process is entirely voluntary.
>>>
>> ah perfect then, so please educate me where i can find the hidden switch
>> to tell GNULIB:
>>
>> "NO I DONT WANT YOUR F****** BROKEN REPLACEMENT FUNCTIONS, THAT EVEN
>> FAIL TO COMPILE WITH AN #ERROR, BECAUSE ITS AUTHORS ARE MORONS THAT
>> DISABLED THE EXISTING PORTABLE FALLBACK CODE" ?
>
> This is your complaint about 'closein', and I think we are making
> progress here.
>
> The problem is that the existing fallback code is not perfect - if you
> would help us come up with a portable replacement that works
> _efficiently_, then we could remove the #error everywhere.  In the
> meantime, the #error continues to serve its purpose - it has let us
> improve both DragonFly and musl (thanks to recent commits adding
> stdioext functions) and gnulib (to use those functions instead of poking
> at musl FILE* internals or falling back to the #error), and the end
> result will be that programs released against the latest version of
> gnulib should now compile without error on musl, with no further effort
> on your part, and without the speed penalty of the fallback code.

Thank you, Eric, for countering the cursing and abusive tone
with calmly-delivered tips that should help John.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]