[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs? |
Date: |
Sun, 24 Jun 2012 13:07:24 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/4.7.4 (Linux/3.1.10-1.9-desktop; KDE/4.7.4; x86_64; ; ) |
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> > The test as it stands is "error out on unsupported platforms unless
> >> > user specifies to use slow method".
> >> > My proposal is "On unsupported platforms, use the slow method instead
> >> > of erroring out."
> >
> > If we did this, nobody would report to bug-gnulib (or to the libc
> > maintainer)
> > the need to port the functions. You would get a slow or buggy program
> > instead.
>
> You can add a test program that detects an unported-to libc. So they
> would get a slow program but also a make check failure.
Unfortunately, a majority of the users (between 50% and 90%, I got the
impression) runs "make; make install" without "make check". And many of
them would also ignore a #warning. To catch the attention of the users
and let them get in touch with us for porting the code, one really has
to provoke a build failure.
Bruno
- Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Isaac Dunham, 2012/06/10
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/10
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Isaac Dunham, 2012/06/11
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/06/12
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/12
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paolo Bonzini, 2012/06/23
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/24
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Paul Eggert, 2012/06/25
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, John Spencer, 2012/06/25
- Re: Why require SLOW_BUT_NO_HACKS for stubs?, Philipp Thomas, 2012/06/25
- Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/17
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, idunham, 2012/06/17
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Rich Felker, 2012/06/18
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Eric Blake, 2012/06/18
- Re: [musl] Re: musl bugs found through gnulib, Rich Felker, 2012/06/18
- Re: musl, fdopen test, Bruno Haible, 2012/06/19