Re: How can Autoconf help with the transition to stricter compilation defaults?

Sam James <[email protected]> Fri, 11 Nov 2022 08:40:39 +0000

Newsgroups	dev.linux.lists.c-std-porting
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

> On 11 Nov 2022, at 03:33, Zack Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 10:08 PM, Sam James wrote:
>>> On 10 Nov 2022, at 21:10, Michael Orlitzky <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> While everyone else is discussing big ideas, it would be helpful for me
>>> personally if autoconf just made a release with the latest bugfixes.
>> 
>> Before I dive into the rest of this thread: yes, this is one of
>> my main thoughts on the matter. Autoconf has a huge network
>> effect problem and letting the existing fixes start to propagate
>> would be most helpful.
> 
> It would be relatively easy for me to take a couple hours this weekend and put out a 2.72 release with everything that's already in trunk and nothing else.  Anyone have reasons I _shouldn't_ do that?
> [...]
> 
> I have not been following the y2038 work closely.  Is it going to affect things in a good way or a bad way??

I've started a discussion on libc-alpha about this, but I think it depends on how you view
the migration. I've come to the conclusion it's probably good but only after thinking
about it a lot. I wish it'd been discussed on the mailing lists first, as it's not obvious
that it's okay, and I'm not sure if others will even share my view.

Let's have the conversation there as it'll be easier to track.

Thanks for prompting me to write this up finally.

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 358 B)