uses of xinmalloc and xpmalloc triggered make syntax-check failure

I noticed some syntax-check failures in diffutils. Its uses of relatively new xinmalloc and xpmalloc functions triggered a "make syntax-check" failure claiming that xalloc.h need not be included, because none of its (old list) functions was used. This updates the regex to match the current list of

flock module

Recently in GCC bug 66005, there was discussion about possible need for flock support in the libgomp testsuite: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66005 I brought up gnulib's flock module, however, there was some concern about how its documentation says, "[T]he replacement function does n

Re: gcc -Wall vs. manywarnings, git checkout vs. tarball

Paul Eggert wrote: > >* Compilations from a git checkout and compilations from a tarball > > behave the same way. > > They can behave differently if the person checking out from git (or > building from a tarball) has a different environment from the person who > built the tarball. Ther

[PATCH] Put "/" at end of .gitignore directory names

* build-aux/bootstrap: Regenerate. * top/bootstrap-funclib.sh (symlink_to_dir, autogen): Put slashes after .gitignore entries that name directories. --- ChangeLog| 7 +++ build-aux/bootstrap | 8 top/bootstrap-funclib.sh | 6 +++--- 3 files changed, 14 insertions(

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

> Jose E. Marchesi wrote: >> > But what I wanted to know is: Now that we know that this patch will cause >> > work to (and may annoy) some people, should I commit it in your name? >> >> Please. > > OK, I pushed it, adding a summary line to the ChangeLog entry: Thank you. > > 2023-06-06 Jose E

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

Jose E. Marchesi wrote: > > But what I wanted to know is: Now that we know that this patch will cause > > work to (and may annoy) some people, should I commit it in your name? > > Please. OK, I pushed it, adding a summary line to the ChangeLog entry: 2023-06-06 Jose E. Marchesi main

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

> José E. Marchesi wrote: >> > Is this your intention? >> >> Yes, if the corresponding requirements of the GCS are still considered >> reasonable and pertinent. >> >> Otherwise, I would say we should update the standard in order to turn >> these requirements into suggestions. > > That's a valid

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

José E. Marchesi wrote: > > Is this your intention? > > Yes, if the corresponding requirements of the GCS are still considered > reasonable and pertinent. > > Otherwise, I would say we should update the standard in order to turn > these requirements into suggestions. That's a valid answer. But

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

> Hi José, > >> +sc_readme_link_install: >> +@require='INSTALL' \ >> +in_vc_files='$(top_srcdir)/README$$'\ >> +halt='The README file should refer to INSTALL' \ >> + $(_sc_search_regexp) > > This rule will whine at

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

Hi José, > +sc_readme_link_install: > + @require='INSTALL' \ > + in_vc_files='$(top_srcdir)/README$$'\ > + halt='The README file should refer to INSTALL' \ > + $(_sc_search_regexp) This rule will whine at least in

Re: [PATCH] syntax-check rules to check for links in README

Pierre Labastie wrote: > IIUC, this is Makefile syntax. If so, there should be semicolons `;' at the > end > of each line (but before the `\'). The 46 existing invocations of $(_sc_search_regexp) don't have semicolons after each variable assignment either. > Otherwise, the shell will be passed >