On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:57:40 -0400 Adam Jackson <ajackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 19:05 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > 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. > > That's sort of a tautology. glibc releases when Fedora releases, at > this point. Yes... my point was that this was going to be a _permanent_ change. Not "...only for the F8 devel phase". 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
