Re: [PATCH v1] Port ndbm

[Joel Sherrill <joel at rtems dot org>]

Ping. Is it OK to merge this?

Thanks

--joel

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 11:11 AM Vaibhav Gupta <vaibhavgupta40@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2019 at 3:48 AM Joel Sherrill <joel@rtems.org> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:45 PM Yaakov Selkowitz <yselkowi@redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 13:30 -0500, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 12:59 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>> > > > On Wed, 2019-07-10 at 12:44 -0400, Craig Howland via newlib wrote:
>> > > > > This is POSIX XSI.  Shouldn't there be some kind of gate?  (Or
>> since
>> > the entire
>> > > > > header is under XSI, no gate is needed since the user controls it
>> on
>> > a file
>> > > > > level?  I prefer this, but I don't know what general Newlib policy
>> > is, as most
>> > > > > are mixed in and need individual gates.)
>> > > >
>> > > > The latter.
>> > >
>> > > Just to be clear, you are wanting gates around individual (or small
>> > groups
>> > > of) methods?
>> >
>> > Gating is only necessary when some parts of a header are governed by
>> > different standards than other parts therein (e.g. XSI or GNU
>> > extensions to an ANSI header).  Gating is NOT necessary when an entire
>> > header is governed by a later standard and not included by other
>> > standard headers, as the #include itself is essentially the gate.
>> >
>> >
>> Thanks. Have we missed any issues with this patch that need to be
>> addressed?
>>
>> Also when I regenerated with autoconf 2.69 instead of 2.68 from libc,
>> there
>> were over 3K lines in the diff. The build worked but I assume someone who
>> regularly regenerates the files will want to do this.
>>
> Hello,
> Are there any issues yet, left in this port? Can it be merged?
>
> - Vaibhav Gupta
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > --
>> > Yaakov Selkowitz
>> > Senior Software Engineer - Platform Enablement
>> > Red Hat, Inc.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>