Re: intl patches (18)

[Ulrich Drepper <drepper at redhat dot com>]

I've applied the patches now.  Not all though.

I have applied

  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 16 17 18

Some comments:

 patch 7: _tolower might be as efficient with glibc but not elsewhere.
          If I'd care about those platforms I wouldn't have applied the
          patch.

 The K&R changes:

          I've applied them only because this is still current practice
          in most GNU utilities.  But we have to face C99 compilers hopefully
          soon and then the K&R syntax is illegal.

          Saying "we have to do this because gcc must be compilable with
          K&R compilers" is *not* a valid argument.  You can simply not
          compile the NLS code if such a compiler is used.

  Alloca changes:

          I haven't checked whether no leaks exist or so.  Again, I don't
          care about non-gcc  users.


Now for the patch I haven't applied:

 patch12: gcc does warn with -Wstrict-prototypes, therefore this patch is
          causing problems.  Simply tell the affected people not to use NLS
          before getting a better compiler.

 patch13: where is ICONV_CONST defined?

 patch14: too messy.  I'm not willing to have any such crap in glibc.  The
          code is not intended to run on these degenerated platforms in the
          first place.  If you want to maintain this (which you shouldn't
          since you are only supporting enemies of free software) create
          a patch which adds to glibc's code only something like

          #ifndef SOME_MACRO
          # define SOME_MACRO default value for reasonable systems
          #endif

          and uses of these macros

 patch15: see patch14


Thanks,

-- 
---------------.                          ,-.   1325 Chesapeake Terrace
Ulrich Drepper  \    ,-------------------'   \  Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA
Red Hat          `--' drepper at redhat.com   `------------------------