This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Use C11 _Alignas on scratch_buffer internal buffer
On 19/09/2017 16:16, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 11:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> Does gnulib require compiler support for anonymous unions?
>
> Unfortunately, no. Gnulib is intended to run on strict C99 and other platforms that do not support anonymous unions. There should be no trouble sticking with ordinary unions here, as all this stuff is private to scratch_buffer and the code is simple either way.
>
>>
>> (BTW, I view this kind of work largely as a distraction, which is why I'm against keeping things in sync with gnulib.)
>
> Many of the recently-installed fixes came from Gnulib, and I hope that more such fixes will be on the way, so there is a practical advantage to staying in sync when that is reasonably easy, as it is here.
>
Although I do see value in keep in sync with gnulib, with the cost of live with
gnulib code constraints; the changes you mentioned came mostly because you pushed
them without much discussion on libc-alpha and I decided to sync the changes
back. Also, this very change we are discussing in another one you take from
glibc and adjusted to gnulib without actually discuss it back on libc-alpha.
I would expect, to make it easier for both glibc and gnulib, that once a patch
is submitted on a maillist we finish consensus and pushed on the referred
project and *after* we sync with either glibc/gnulib. It is hard and waster
a lot of time trying to sync with gnulib once one push patches without much
discussion on libc-alpha.
However I would to iterate that I do appreciate the work you did on glob
patches reviews, I would just like to ask if we can get a little more
consensus on glibc part before actually commit the patches.