Re: Why was the reallocarray function not added to glibc?

[Dennis Wölfing <denniswoelfing at gmx dot de>]

On 07.04.2017 22:09, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 3:38 PM, Dennis Wölfing <denniswoelfing@gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>> I think I have fixed the problems with that patch.
> 
> Thank you for doing this work.
> 
> Do you have a copyright assignment on file with the FSF?  We can't
> take patches from anyone without one.

I have sent the signed paper to assign@gnu.org today and am awaiting
their answer.

>> My changes include:
>> - Updating the version number in malloc/Versions
>> - Adding reallocarray to the abilist files
>> - Wrapping the reallocarray declaration in #ifdef __USE_GNU
>> - Changing the reallocarray strong_alias into a weak_alias
>> Now the conform tests (and also the other tests) pass.
> 
> This definitely sounds like you're on the right track, at least.
> 
>> However because most of the patch was not written by me I am not sure what
>> is the correct way to submit the updated patch.
>>
>> Of course the patch should include the original ChangeLog entry by Rüdiger
>> Sonderfeld. And perhaps I should add another ChangeLog for my changes to the
>> abilists. But do I also need to create additional ChangeLog entries for
>> files where I just changed a few lines of the original patch?
> 
> ChangeLog entries need to mention every file that changed.  Yes, it's
> tedious, but it's also enormously valuable when you are trying to
> figure out *why* something changed, many years later.

What I meant with this question was not whether every file should have a
ChangeLog but rather whether I should add a new ChangeLog entry when
there already is a ChangeLog entry from the original patch.
For example the ChangeLog from the original patch already says that a
new declaration was added to stdlib.h, do I also need to create a new
ChangeLog entry saying that I added #ifdef __USE_GNU?

>> Also the original patch added new testcase file. Should the patch list
>> 2014-2017 as the copyright date for that file because 2014 is year when it
>> was written or should it be changed to say 2017?
> 
> I think we would do 2014-2017 for this.
> 
> zw
>