> On 12 Nov 2022, at 21:31, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-12 12:23, Wookey wrote:
>> we can't just have everyone who enabled LFS sometime in the
>> last 20 years suddenly being forced into the time_t change (can we?)
>
> We've done it in the past.
>
> AC_SYS_LARGEFILE originally was in
> On 13 Nov 2022, at 00:43, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to
>> warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call
>> that gets executed at runtime, hence a definitive signature
On Sat, Nov 12, 2022 at 7:43 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-11 07:11, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > We believe the runtime behavior is sufficiently dangerous to
> > warrant a conservative view that any call to a function will be a call
> > that gets executed at runtime, hence a definitive
* Paul Eggert:
> On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote:
>> it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid
>> language constructs
>
> Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test
> whether the language constructs work. And Clang therefore must be
> careful
* Arsen Arsenović:
> Evening,
>
> Adam Sampson writes:
>> If the consensus on this does come down to the definition of new
>> architecture triplets, are there any other changes that should (or
>> could) be made at the same time, beyond time64 and LFS?
>
> Forwarding a suggestion from Arfrever:
Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha writes:
> We should define new target triplets for this if it's really required.
If the consensus on this does come down to the definition of new
architecture triplets, are there any other changes that should (or
could) be made at the same time, beyond time64 and
On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote:
it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid
language constructs
Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test
whether the language constructs work. And Clang therefore must be
careful about how it diagnoses invalid
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 1:14 PM Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> On 2022-11-14 04:41, Aaron Ballman wrote:
> > it's generally a problem when autoconf relies on invalid
> > language constructs
>
> Autoconf *must* rely on invalid language constructs, if only to test
> whether the language constructs work.
Evening,
Adam Sampson writes:
> If the consensus on this does come down to the definition of new
> architecture triplets, are there any other changes that should (or
> could) be made at the same time, beyond time64 and LFS?
Forwarding a suggestion from Arfrever:
> Please consider making
* Adam Sampson via Libc-alpha:
> Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha writes:
>
>> We should define new target triplets for this if it's really required.
>
> If the consensus on this does come down to the definition of new
> architecture triplets, are there any other changes that should (or
> could) be
10 matches
Mail list logo
