This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] remove nested function hack_digit
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: Konstantin Serebryany <konstantin dot s dot serebryany at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab at linux-m68k dot org>, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] remove nested function hack_digit
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGQ9bdxUJaUzz=ndu-qnhkPGAH7=m5mFKxpDag=H693TeA2ORw at mail dot gmail dot com> <87a960l9ze dot fsf at igel dot home> <CAGQ9bdyxCW-_3rLy6uLg4Vc2FPx+gUL7PChaXA4i6aKmnjGVZg at mail dot gmail dot com> <mvm38bsyppg dot fsf at hawking dot suse dot de> <CAGQ9bdya8w_OmD=1wKayhLN51H+Jqaio3RGqtATKWc6_hPgBxQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140922214338 dot 0D30A2C3971 at topped-with-meat dot com> <CAGQ9bdzKgTMEFM7-uL98nzqgJfOtm+U0AhzcnkgqTuqs3r_=UQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140922224516 dot EAC342C3971 at topped-with-meat dot com> <CAGQ9bdyOVYamtWG4L4tUp+WiL2AstZpGLRFKsSeLtLPMyv6Cow at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAGQ9bdwzvk+h=39NuJG+7TvpKu+m6j8=nGZrhidAWxiNeTuJBQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140926193846 dot BF4482C39D8 at topped-with-meat dot com> <CAGQ9bdxUCEdq-fJ8aithXrYT4HXS6S-q_aVCivXAfQs8803_hA at mail dot gmail dot com>
> I've attached a patch that addresses your comments.
>
> 2014-09-26 Kostya Serebryany <konstantin.s.serebryany@gmail.com>
> * stdio-common/printf_fp.c
> (hack_digit): New function, broken out of ...
> (__printf_fp): ... local function here. Update call sites.
> hack_digit now takes an additional parameter that is a pointer
> to a struct of the referenced locals. Those locals moved inside
> the struct and references updated.
There's a blank line after the date/name line. The entry's lines are
indented by one tab. Otherwise I think everything's fine for you to commit
this now. You don't have direct commit access yet, but we'll fix that soon.
> The comparison is between the trunk and the current patch.
> The differences are minimal.
Great! Thanks for the clarification.
> > You didn't report what testing you did on this patch.
>
> I've runs "make check".
I'll assume you meant you run 'make check' on x86_64-linux-gnu.
> On my system I get same number of failures with and w/o the patch:
Reporting, "No regressions in 'make check' on x86_64-linux-gnu." is
sufficient for a change like this.
> off-topic -- how do I achieve a clean "make check" run on Ubuntu 14.04?
> This is what I do:
> ../glibc/configure --prefix=$HOME/glibc-clang/inst && make -j 40 &&
> make -j 40 check
Perhaps next week I'll upgrade my office workstation and then investigate.