Hi Clement,
>> OTOH, I wondered if it wouldn't be better to start from the GNU code
>> which is certainly known to work, rather than the DragonflyBSD one which
>> may well have bitrotten since most of the BSDs moved to LLVM. Then
>> again, it may not: Gerald tests on FreeBSD regularly. Perhaps a 3-way
> merge of gnu and *bsd -> ieee_1003.1-2008 is in order?
not in the sense of actually combining the code bases, I'd say, but
certainly comparing all three. gnu is guaranteed to be better
maintained/kept up to date.
> Gnu model is really different as it implements catalogues, is using
> nl_langinfo_l with GNU specific defines instead of localeconv_l, and few
> other stuffs like this.
True: we can only take parts that are in POSIX.1-2008/XPG7, obviously.
But checking for differences is still in order, I believe.
> I'll check if some parts might be interesting. But BSD seems closer to want
> we actually want.
Right, except for the fear that the code has partially bitrotten. It's
up to Jonathan, of course, to decide if we're better off keeping gnu,
dragonfly (better renamed to bsd to match actual use) and
ieee-1003.1-2008 separate or update/rename the dragonfly code to work on
both the BSDs and POSIX.1-2008 systems.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University
