Re: Is strnlen(0,0) valid?

2024-09-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 11:36, Vincent Lefevre via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > About the strnlen() function > > size_t strnlen(const char *s, size_t maxlen); > > in the strnlen description from > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/strnlen.html > > "The

Re: Proposal: Declare `make` default implicit rules for C++ projects

2024-09-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Tue, 3 Sept 2024 at 10:51, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 22:57, Andrew Pennebaker via austin-group-l at > The Open Group wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I am interested in learning more about the default implicit rules. It seems > > that make has explicitly supported C projects

Re: Proposal: Declare `make` default implicit rules for C++ projects

2024-09-03 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 at 22:57, Andrew Pennebaker via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > Hi, > > I am interested in learning more about the default implicit rules. It seems > that make has explicitly supported C projects for many years, providing > default rule behaviors for common C file

Re: Thread-safe equivalent of localeconv()

2024-08-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 11:28, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > Jonathan Wakely wrote, on 19 Aug 2024: > > > > On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 10:34, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The > > Open Group wrote: > > > > > > Jonathan Wakely wrote, on 19 Aug 2024: > > > > > > > > On

Re: Thread-safe equivalent of localeconv()

2024-08-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Mon, 19 Aug 2024 at 10:34, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > Jonathan Wakely wrote, on 19 Aug 2024: > > > > On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 10:37, Corinna Vinschen via austin-group-l at > > The Open Group wrote: > > > > > > On Aug 16 16:53, Thomas Munro via austin-group-l at T

Re: Thread-safe equivalent of localeconv()

2024-08-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Fri, 16 Aug 2024 at 10:37, Corinna Vinschen via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > On Aug 16 16:53, Thomas Munro via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am aware of two thread-safe localeconv() alternatives in the wild: > > > > 1. glibc has nl_langinfo_l(DECIM

Re: Austin Group WEBEX +1-408-792-6300 PIN 668 216 233

2024-03-12 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 at 14:36, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > Date:Tue, 12 Mar 2024 08:16:51 -0400 (EDT) > From:"Single UNIX Specification via austin-group-l at The Open > Group" > Message-ID: <202403120816.c9d2d0b3357afd28622ef410caf1f...@

Re: system(NULL) overly restrictive?

2023-10-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Tue, 24 Oct 2023 at 07:10, Oğuz via austin-group-l at The Open Group < austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 24, 2023, enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group < > austin-group-l@opengroup.org> wrote: > >> netbsd checks that _PATH_BSHELL is exectuable with access(2) >> (but

Function to access the family of a sockaddr

2023-03-31 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
As well as the "it shall work, even if it must be magic" fix for the sockaddr aliasing problems, has any consideration been given to a named function for accessing the sa_family_t fields? inline sa_family_t getsockfam(const struct sockaddr* sa) { sa_family_t fam; memcpy(&fam, (char*)sa + offse

Re: Status of STREAMS error numbers in

2023-02-10 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 at 09:11, Geoff Clare wrote: > > Jonathan Wakely wrote, on 09 Feb 2023: > > > > At the ISO C++ committee meeting this week we hope to vote this change > > into C++23: > > https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3869 > > > > The current C++ standard (aka C++20) refers to ISO/IEC 99

Status of STREAMS error numbers in

2023-02-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
At the ISO C++ committee meeting this week we hope to vote this change into C++23: https://cplusplus.github.io/LWG/issue3869 The current C++ standard (aka C++20) refers to ISO/IEC 9945:2003, but C++23 will use ISO/IEC/IEEE 9945:2009 + Cor 1:2013 and Cor 2:2017 as its normative POSIX reference. But

Re: strftime %Ou

2022-12-09 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Fri, 9 Dec 2022 at 12:11, Geoff Clare via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > Jonathan Wakely wrote, on 08 Dec 2022: > > > > Did this email make it to the list? Should I have asked/reported this > > another way? > > It made it to the list, but the lack of an answer probably means > nobo

Re: strftime %Ou

2022-12-08 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Did this email make it to the list? Should I have asked/reported this another way? On Sat, 19 Nov 2022 at 16:06, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > In draft 2.1 (and the current spec) strftime's %Ou modified spec is described > as: > > %Ou Replaced by the weekday as a number in the locale’s alternative

strftime %Ou

2022-11-19 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
In draft 2.1 (and the current spec) strftime's %Ou modified spec is described as: %Ou Replaced by the weekday as a number in the locale’s alternative representation (Monday=1). Should that say "as a number using the locale's alternative numeric symbols"? Otherwise the definition is circular. %Ou

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001457]: Add readlink(1) utility

2022-07-22 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 15:53, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > Aside from that possibility the only reason would seem to be the same > as why echo (real ones) have -n (and trashy ones have \c) and why > printf(1) needs a \n to print one ... there are times that it is useful

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001457]: Add readlink(1) utility

2022-02-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 13:34, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 13:03, Robert Elz wrote: > > > > Date:Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:28:20 + > > From:Jonathan Wakely > > Message-ID: > > > > > > | Nothing in any GNU licence prevents reading code. > > > >

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001457]: Add readlink(1) utility

2022-02-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 at 13:03, Robert Elz wrote: > > Date:Mon, 28 Feb 2022 10:28:20 + > From:Jonathan Wakely > Message-ID: > > > | Nothing in any GNU licence prevents reading code. > > Not explicitly, no. But if I read some code, and then write > something sim

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001457]: Add readlink(1) utility

2022-02-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 at 14:56, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > > OK. I have looked at the coreutils realpath man page (gnu licensing > stupidity means I cannot look at their code), Nothing in any GNU licence prevents reading code.

Re: Proposal to update reference to POSIX in the ISO C++ standard

2020-09-28 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On 28/09/20 14:36 +, shwaresyst wrote: The 2018 edition is the latest ISO/IEC/IEEE version, in that it was balloted and approved to keep the IEEE "current standard" clock from timing out. The 2008 edition plus TCs is now the prior version, in the formal sense. Is that not in the ISO stor

Re: Proposal to update reference to POSIX in the ISO C++ standard

2020-09-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
echnology — Portable Operating System Interface (POSIX), Technical Corrigendum 2 Thanks! -- Nick On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 7:42 AM Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: On 24/09/20 15:28 +0100, Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: >Hello, >

Re: Proposal to update reference to POSIX in the ISO C++ standard

2020-09-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
On 24/09/20 15:28 +0100, Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: Hello, I am writing a proposal for the ISO C++ standard committee (WG21) to update the reference to the POSIX standard in the C++ International Standard. My colleague Eric Blake suggested I ask on this list

Proposal to update reference to POSIX in the ISO C++ standard

2020-09-24 Thread Jonathan Wakely via austin-group-l at The Open Group
Hello, I am writing a proposal for the ISO C++ standard committee (WG21) to update the reference to the POSIX standard in the C++ International Standard. My colleague Eric Blake suggested I ask on this list whether anybody here has any comments on the proposal. The draft is at https://kayari.org