This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] strfmon_l: Use specified locale for number formatting [BZ #19633]
- From: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>, Martin Sebor <msebor at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 11:58:34 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] strfmon_l: Use specified locale for number formatting [BZ #19633]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <56CF62D0 dot 8060803 at redhat dot com> <56CF7D30 dot 2090000 at redhat dot com> <56DD80AF dot 3000408 at redhat dot com> <56DD9E1C dot 5030408 at redhat dot com> <56DDA516 dot 4090509 at redhat dot com>
On 03/07/2016 10:58 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 03/07/2016 04:28 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> I tend to agree with Martin here, having that separation between
>> test and data makes it easier to read and change the test or add
>> more tests.
>>
>> If you're getting a warning from the compiler you expect but don't
>> care about then you can just silence the warning with the appropriate
>> attribute?
>
> The warning is not enabled by default (or even -W), so I'm not sure if
> that's even necessary.
If the warning isn't enabled, then we don't need to worry about it today.
The vision here is that we can run everything with -Werror, but we aren't
there yet in some cases (see -Wundef fixes required).
> What's your opinion on the separate static test? Should I include it?
I have no strong opinion. The dynamic test is sufficient. I don't see
that much reward to a static test other than perhaps to expose problems
we have in the static support via NL_CURRENT_INDIRECT?
--
Cheers,
Carlos.