On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 17:53:03 -0500 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2007 at 05:05:53PM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> Well, ISO C doesn't cover fcntl.h, if it would, it would certainly not > >> be a perfectly legal C code, as per ISO C99, 7.1.3/1. > >> As fcntl.h is a POSIX header, you need to consider that standard > >> and that standard says that this code is not perfectly legal. > > > > Yes. And the ANSI C spec also makes structure assignment internally > > self-inconsistent, forbids using pointers out of the allocated range even > > for comparison and so on... > > > > That doesn't create an excuse for doing these things, and doing them breaks > > lots of code and annoys people. You'll figure this out when you try and > > push it in a product people pay for, and also that just about everything > > the idiot macro hack does can be done by a 1 line of perl search of the > > source trees. > > Hm, in fact, *if* this is only for the F8 devel phase (is it?) then > maybe an rpm macro in the prep phase to do that perl search would be > less painful... I think this will show up in upstream glibc 2.7 when it is released. josh -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
