[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAA-4+jeQnL6G3wpK=KZ0jG+y8LLrXCNS3LoenkraepKGav-wRA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:12:39 +0900
From: Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com>
To: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: musl@...ts.openwall.com, bug-gnu-gettext@....org
Subject: Re: Re: [bug-gettext] AM_GNU_GETTEXT without referring
internal symbols?
2016-04-07 15:26 GMT+09:00 Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 02:34:01PM +0900, Masanori Ogino wrote:
>> 2016-04-07 11:26 GMT+09:00 Daiki Ueno <ueno@....org>:
>> > Masanori Ogino <masanori.ogino@...il.com> writes:
>> >> That is why I proposed to have a blacklist of "broken" implementations
>> >> as an option.
>> >>
>> >> AFAIK there have already been some blacklisting in autotools e.g.
>> >> checking the version of glibc to reject specific broken implementation
>> >> of a function. Thus, I think it's acceptable to use a blacklist. What
>> >> do you think about it?
>> >
>> > Yes, that sounds like a good idea. But I guess we then need to collect
>> > information about incompatible implementations. In this regard I'm
>> > actually not sure if the gettext-tools test coverage can be used as an
>> > indicator of compatibility.
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> > By the way, musl defines __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION in the same
>> > way as glibc:
>> >
>> > #define __GNU_GETTEXT_SUPPORTED_REVISION(major) ((major) == 0 ? 1 : -1)
>> >
>> > Is major = 1 + minor = 1 actually supported in musl?
>>
>> musl doesn't support "%Id" (major 1) IIRC. I suspect that musl
>> actually supports "system dependent segment" (minor 1) as the GNU
>> implementation does.
>>
>> On the other hand, glibc's definition is questionable too since it
>> seems that glibc's gettext implements major 1.
>
> The intent is that musl supports the _API_ fully, not the (IMO awful,
> and against the whole spirit of gettext) GNU implementation of sysdep
> strings as a segment of the mo file that's patched at runtime and
> wastes core in every process. Instead, msgfmt (there's a prototype
> version of the utility that does this, but it needs work) should
> generate all possible combinations of the expansion of the sysdep
> macros at mo generation time, and "sysdep" translations magically work
> with no runtime cost. At some point I want to prepare a patch for
> upstream msgfmt to do this but I haven't gotten around to it yet.
>
> I'm not sure what the %Id thing you're referring to is; can you point
> me to a description of it?
%Id is essentially an extension of printf(3) in glibc 2.2 and later.
It can be implemented by the same way as how sysdep is implemented; it
just depends on the current locale, not the ABI.
Search http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/sprintf.3.html by "glibc
2.2 adds" for details.
Fortunately, https://www.gnu.org/software/gettext/manual/html_node/c_002dformat.html
describes that, if I understand this correctly, gettext can ignore the
I flag if printf does not recognize it. I don't know whether such
implementation matches the requirement of major 1 GNU mo format.
--
Masanori Ogino
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.
