[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120615021444.GO163@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:14:44 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Fw: [buggnulib]Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 10:55:37PM -0700, Isaac Dunham wrote:
> Here's the latest re: getting gnulib to use something portable...
Thanks.
> > The test as it stands is "error out on unsupported platforms unless
> > user specifies to use slow method".
> > My proposal is "On unsupported platforms, use the slow method instead
> > of erroring out."
>
> I agree, downgrading to a #warning and removing SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS
> should be enough. That would be something like this, but it would fail
> the tests. What to do?
>
> Paolo
Do you know what he's talking about for failing the tests?
> diff --git a/lib/freadahead.c b/lib/freadahead.c
> index 2ba8b34..473911f 100644
> --- a/lib/freadahead.c
> +++ b/lib/freadahead.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>
> [...]
> + /* This implementation is correct on any ANSI C platform. It is just
> + awfully slow. */
> + return freading(fp) && !feof(fp);
This can definitely return 1 when no data is buffered, and when read
would block, on some platforms. I think that could break some
applications using the interface.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
