[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's
From: |
Samuel Thibault |
Subject: |
Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate |
Date: |
Wed, 21 May 2014 10:00:47 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21+34 (58baf7c9f32f) (2010-12-30) |
Svante Signell, le Wed 21 May 2014 09:47:08 +0200, a écrit :
> > > +# Special treatment of EWOULDBLOCK for GNU/Hurd
> > > +# /usr/include/bits/errno.h: #define EWOULDBLOCK EAGAIN
> > > +if egrep 'define EWOULDBLOCK EAGAIN' gen-sysinfo.go > /dev/null 2>&1;
> > > then
> > > + egrep '^const EWOULDBLOCK = Errno(_EWOULDBLOCK)' ${OUT} | \
> > > + sed -i.bak -e 's/_EWOULDBLOCK/_EAGAIN/' ${OUT}
> >
> > I don't understand why you both pass the output of egrep to sed, and you
> > give the -i option to sed. AIUI, the
> > egrep '^const EWOULDBLOCK = Errno(_EWOULDBLOCK)'
> > part is completely unused, so you can just drop it.
>
> Well, the -i option is to get a backup copy for debugging purposes, can
> safely be removed.
Err, no, -i completely changes the behavior of sed, which then doesn't
read its stdin at all any more, it will modify ${OUT} in-place instead.
It happens that it is what you want here. But then just drop the egrep
just before, it really is useless now. And drop the .bak suffix, I don't
think the gnugo maintainers will want to see a .bak file lying behind.
> Good luck making the patch better. It worked for me, but as I wrote
> before I'm no sed/grep expert.
I'm not the one to be convinced, gnugo maintainers are the one to be.
I'm just telling you in advance what *they* will tell you.
Samuel
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, (continued)
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Svante Signell, 2014/05/06
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Samuel Thibault, 2014/05/06
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Svante Signell, 2014/05/06
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Samuel Thibault, 2014/05/06
- patch1.diff updated + test results Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Svante Signell, 2014/05/07
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Svante Signell, 2014/05/16
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Ian Lance Taylor, 2014/05/16
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Svante Signell, 2014/05/16
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Samuel Thibault, 2014/05/20
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Svante Signell, 2014/05/21
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate,
Samuel Thibault <=
- Re: patch8.diff updated Was: Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Ian Lance Taylor, 2014/05/21
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Ian Lance Taylor, 2014/05/06
- Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Samuel Thibault, 2014/05/02
Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Samuel Thibault, 2014/05/02
Re: GCC's -fsplit-stack disturbing Mach's vm_allocate, Samuel Thibault, 2014/05/02