Re: keep on patchin'

On 8/25/20 3:17 AM, Craig Small wrote:
> I have included one example. Let me know what you think

Hi Craig,

That was a solution I wouldn't have thought of.  And since 6 separate 
programs would be required (to avoid duplicate Item_table errors) a 
complete verification would be performed rather than bailing on the 
first module in error.

However, it would make a bit of a mess in the proc/ directory when the 
chances of **any** Item_table error is small.  And including a .c source 
file in such a manner would have to be kept as a closely held secret.

Anyway, attached is a tarball with 4 patches for newlib.  The first two 
are silly cosmetic changes.  The third is a desirable change somewhat 
related to ITEMTABLE_DEBUG.

The fourth patch is an alternative build-sys solution.  I have no idea 
how many automake conventions I may have violated in that patch but, it 
seems to do the trick on my system.  And someday we may choose to expand 
that EXTRA_DEBUG variable to also include the XTRA_PROCPS_DEBUG #define.

To review, I'd like patches 0001-0003 for sure pushed to newlib.  But 
patch 0004 is yours to consider as an alternative to the original 6 
separate program approach.

Regards,

Jim

p.s. It sure would be nice if we could omit the '-i' switch (due to the 
'exp' error) from 'make check' and 'make distcheck'.