Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Solaris support

diff --git a/96/b8903f5106aa85a3049e633065c7939e3023bd b/96/b8903f5106aa85a3049e633065c7939e3023bd
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..245332e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/96/b8903f5106aa85a3049e633065c7939e3023bd
@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+Return-Path: <blakej@foo.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8A6F431FAF\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:43:08 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: 0\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[none]\r
+       autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id WgSEczSvrpzK for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:43:05 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from foo.net (70-36-235-136.dsl.static.sonic.net [70.36.235.136])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8DC0431FAE\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:43:04 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from foo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by foo.net (8.14.5+Sun/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAFIgtrF015994;\r
+       Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:42:56 -0800 (PST)\r
+To: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/10] Solaris support \r
+In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:55:14 +0200."\r
+       <m2haoqx3ml.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi> \r
+Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:42:55 -0800\r
+Message-ID: <15993.1353004975@foo.net>\r
+From: Blake Jones <blakej@foo.net>\r
+X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2\r
+       (foo.net [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:42:57 -0800 (PST)\r
+Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 18:43:08 -0000\r
+\r
+> $ gcc compat/have_strsep.c\r
+> compat/have_strsep.c: In function "main":\r
+> compat/have_strsep.c:7:21: error: expected identifier or "(" before "const"\r
+> compat/have_strsep.c:9:29: error: "delim" undeclared (first use in this function)\r
+> compat/have_strsep.c:9:29: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in\r
+> zsh: exit 1     gcc compat/have_strsep.c\r
+> \r
+> --- It is very easy to spot the problem ;)\r
+\r
+Sigh, yes it is.  I started my Solaris port using some patches from\r
+someone else who had done previous work on a Solaris port, and obviously\r
+I didn't look at the patch very closely.  In fact, after fixing\r
+have_strsep.c, I saw that I didn't even need it -- Solaris 11 has\r
+strsep() in libc.  But I'd prefer to clean up this patch and leave the\r
+compat version available for those compiling on older versions of\r
+Solaris, if that's okay.\r
+\r
+> $ gcc compat/check_asctime.c\r
+> compat/check_asctime.c: In function "main":\r
+> compat/check_asctime.c:15:5: error: too many arguments to function "asctime_r"\r
+> In file included from compat/check_asctime.c:8:0:\r
+> /usr/include/time.h:266:14: note: declared here\r
+> zsh: exit 1     gcc compat/check_asctime.c\r
+> \r
+> --- the posix-semantics way uses the 2-arg format. \r
+> \r
+> The logic of the test setting in this file doesn't open to\r
+> me. Why not test the same way as in getpwuid_r() case ?\r
+\r
+Yeah, that's clearly the right thing to do.  I was getting odd behavior\r
+when I defined _POSIX_PTHREAD_SEMANTICS for getpwuid_r(), and it looks\r
+like I fixed it in the wrong direction.\r
+\r
+Did you happen to notice any other issues besides these two?  I'd rather\r
+not spam the list with my ten-patch set if there's other silly stuff\r
+that needs cleaning up.\r
+\r
+Thanks again for testing this.\r
+\r
+Blake\r