[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120614205409.3935484a@newbook>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:54:09 -0700
From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Fw: [buggnulib]Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 22:14:44 -0400
Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> wrote:
> 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?
> Do you know what he's talking about for failing the tests?
Not a clue.
> > 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.
I ought to mention that over there...
Thanks,
Isaac Dunham
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.
