Date:Sun, 20 Aug 2017 08:56:28 -0700
From:n...@dad.org
Message-ID: <201708201556.v7kfutmv083...@shell1.rawbw.com>
| I am attaching what I believe to be the replcomps I'm using. How should I
| modify it?
Delete the Reply-To: (or at least the default value). Reply
Ken Hornstein writes:
>
>Man, Norm, I wish your replcomps would use the Reply-to header, but anyway
I am attaching what I believe to be the replcomps I'm using. How should I
modify it?
Norman Shapiro
%(lit)%(formataddr %<{reply-to}%?{from}%?{sender}%?{return-path}%>)\
%<(nonnull)%(void(width
Hi again David,
> ./configure \
> CC='ccache cc' \
> CFLAGS='-g -O3 -std=c99 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Werror
> -fdiagnostics-color=auto' \
> -C \
It's the -C that's significant.
Without it, the second make doesn't loose _GNU_SOURCE.
But I'd like a cache as it's not
Hi David,
> > > Should I cherry-pick that to 1.7-release, also?
> >
> > Please.
I still have problems.
make superclean
./autogen.sh
rm -f config.cache
./configure \
CC='ccache cc' \
CFLAGS='-g -O3 -std=c99 -pedantic -pedantic-errors -Werror
-fdiagnostics-color=au
Ralph wrote:
> What's the semantic difference? One can be specified by the user, and
> the AM_* is what configure (automake) works out is required?
Yes, where "works out is required" comes from configure.ac and whatever
it pulls in, rather than configure itself.
> > Should I cherry-pick that to
Hi David,
> Any objection to removing "nmh" from before "messages" from at least
> some of these?
...
> Does anyone have time to go through the others?
Doing it now.
--
Cheers, Ralph.
https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy
___
Nmh-workers mailing lis
Hi David,
> configure.ac added -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE to AM_CPPFLAGS. I just changed
> that to CPPFLAGS on master, that'll reduce the force with which we (I)
> try to impose it.
What's the semantic difference? One can be specified by the user, and
the AM_* is what configure (automake) works out is r
I wrote:
> configure.ac doesn't add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE if CFLAGS contains -O0, but
> that can be easily fooled at compile time.
configure.ac added -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE to AM_CPPFLAGS. I just changed that
to CPPFLAGS on master, that'll reduce the force with which we (I) try to
impose it. Should I ch
Ralph wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
> > isn't that sort of the point of mhfixmsg? to fix poorly or illegally
> > formatted email?
>
> Good point, but I think it uses the stock nmh code for parsing emails
> rather than have it own code that is cluttered with wart handling.
Yes. mhparse works quite nicely
Ralph wrote:
> I don't know if this is the right fix.
I don't either. mhparse is long overdue for a good sanitizing.
> Frankly, after staring at functions that take a pointer to a struct
> with an FILE pointer and a filename, and also a couple of pointers to
> return a filename and a file descr
Ralph wrote:
> With -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2:
> -O0 Compile fails; optimisation needed.
configure.ac doesn't add -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE if CFLAGS contains -O0, but
that can be easily fooled at compile time.
> So valgrind looks best with -O2, but gcc spots some problems itself at
> -O3 if no
11 matches
Mail list logo