Re: [PATCH v1] Port ndbm

On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:48 AM Joel Sherrill <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:45 PM Yaakov Selkowitz <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 13:30 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:59 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 12:44 -0400, Craig Howland via newlib wrote:
> > > > > This is POSIX XSI.  Shouldn't there be some kind of gate?  (Or
> since
> > the entire
> > > > > header is under XSI, no gate is needed since the user controls it
> on
> > a file
> > > > > level?  I prefer this, but I don't know what general Newlib policy
> > is, as most
> > > > > are mixed in and need individual gates.)
> > > >
> > > > The latter.
> > >
> > > Just to be clear, you are wanting gates around individual (or small
> > groups
> > > of) methods?
> >
> > Gating is only necessary when some parts of a header are governed by
> > different standards than other parts therein (e.g. XSI or GNU
> > extensions to an ANSI header).  Gating is NOT necessary when an entire
> > header is governed by a later standard and not included by other
> > standard headers, as the #include itself is essentially the gate.
> >
> >
> Thanks. Have we missed any issues with this patch that need to be
> addressed?
>
> Also when I regenerated with autoconf 2.69 instead of 2.68 from libc, there
> were over 3K lines in the diff. The build worked but I assume someone who
> regularly regenerates the files will want to do this.
>
Hello,
Are there any issues yet, left in this port? Can it be merged?

- Vaibhav Gupta


>
>
>
> > --
> > Yaakov Selkowitz
> > Senior Software Engineer - Platform Enablement
> > Red Hat, Inc.
> >
> >
> >
>