Message ID | 20181029121650.24544-1-gabriel@inconstante.eti.br |
---|---|
Headers | show |
Series | Use more flags parameters instead of global bits in stdio | expand |
Thank you for updating these patches and doing what sounds like a great deal of additional clean-up work. I do not have time in the foreseeable future to review them myself, unfortunately. Do you think you might have time to pick up the follow-on patch that changes scanf to be C99-conformant under _GNU_SOURCE? (https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-02/msg00608.html) It will need quite a bit of work but I would really like to see that go into the next release of glibc. zw
On Mon, 29 Oct 2018, Zack Weinberg wrote: >Thank you for updating these patches and doing what sounds like a >great deal of additional clean-up work. I do not have time in the >foreseeable future to review them myself, unfortunately. OK, thanks for the heads up. >Do you think you might have time to pick up the follow-on patch that >changes scanf to be C99-conformant under _GNU_SOURCE? >(https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-02/msg00608.html) It will >need quite a bit of work but I would really like to see that go into >the next release of glibc. Yes, I think I could. :) As noted by Joseph in that thread [1], the test suite has little coverage for -mlong-double-64, which could make it hard to review. On the other hand, I have been working on some new tests for -mabi=ieeelongdouble (not yet on master), and I think I will be able to reuse them (similarly to what Joseph suggested and I implemented for argp/err/error tests [2]). [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-02/msg00630.html [2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2018-08/msg00583.html