> On 3 Jan 2023, at 02:14, Sam James wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 2 Jan 2023, at 06:10, Paul Eggert wrote:
>>
>> This is a serious bug in Clang: it generates incorrect machine code.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> My guess is that Clang got confused because dfaerror is declared _Noreturn,
>> so Clang mistakenl
> On 2 Jan 2023, at 06:10, Paul Eggert wrote:
>
> This is a serious bug in Clang: it generates incorrect machine code.
>
> [snip]
>
> My guess is that Clang got confused because dfaerror is declared _Noreturn,
> so Clang mistakenly assumed that dfawarn is also _Noreturn, which it is not.
>
On 2022-12-12 01:07, Simon Josefsson via Gnulib discussion list wrote:
While the
explanation may be that AFS is not providing POSIX-semantics for the
file system, I think failing a self-test for this reason is too strong:
it could print an error message, or SKIP the test. Thoughts?
Since the n
On Android 4.3 (with the 'Terminal IDE' app), I'm seeing a compilation error
in the latest diffutils snapshot:
CC libdiffutils_a-c-stack.o
In file included from ../../lib/c-stack.c:52:
./sigsegv.h:33:23: error: ucontext.h: No such file or directory
And similarly in the latest grep snapsho
Happy new year, Bruno!
Yes, sorry, wrong list! :)
Marc
Am Mo., 2. Jan. 2023 um 15:42 Uhr schrieb Bruno Haible :
>
> Hi Marc,
>
> > For purposes of dynamically calling code, I need the following layout
> > of the assembled code:
> >
> > 0x00: 16-byte header
> > 0x10: entry point #1
> > 0x20: entr
Hi Marc,
> For purposes of dynamically calling code, I need the following layout
> of the assembled code:
>
> 0x00: 16-byte header
> 0x10: entry point #1
> 0x20: entry point #2
Happy new year. But this topic does not fit bug-gnulib. Maybe you sent it
to the wrong list?
Bruno
For purposes of dynamically calling code, I need the following layout
of the assembled code:
0x00: 16-byte header
0x10: entry point #1
0x20: entry point #2
I want to use the new align/skip instructions for this. My code
generator currently looks like this:
align (16)
header:
ski
> What happens if you try to copy ACLs from a filesystem using NFSv4 ACLs to
> one using POSIXish ACLs, or vice versa?
It fails, we can't do ACL conversion.
> Why is this call needed? Won't a successful attr_copy_file mean that the
> chmod_or_fchmod is unnecessary? I.e., can't we do the chmod_o
