Re: coreutils-6.4 released (stable)

[Matthew Woehlke]

Paul Eggert wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote (via Eric Blake's kind reposting):
> > Ok. Using the latest snapshot Eric provided me with, m4 fails to build
> > on Tandem NSK/OSS. Using the above, *plus* this patch:
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-10/msg00140.html
> > both 'make' and 'make check' succeed.
>
> As Bruno mentioned in
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2006-11/msg00092.html>,
> he'd rather not head down this path due to the high cost/benefit
> ratio.  Even if M4 builds with the abovementioned patch, the approach
> will likely cause runtime misbehaviors -- almost certainly in
> coreutils, and quite possibly also in M4.
>
> Perhaps there's a better way.  In
> <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2006-11/msg00069.html>
> I asked Matthew Woehlke why the patch was actually needed -- as it's
> not 100% clear to me -- and that hasn't been followed up on yet.

...it's needed because there is no 'unsigned long long' and the 
aforementioned patch removes several codepaths that depend on 'unsigned 
long long'? (And the message Eric re-posted - which does indeed seem to 
have not shown up? - was actually posted in follow-up to the 
aforementioned message.)

You keep mentioning "the new compiler". Personally, I always have a heck 
of a time trying to find *anything* about NSK on HP's site; would you 
happen to have a link to any information? Would you happen to know if it 
is available as a free upgrade? (If not, I very much doubt I would be 
able to upgrade.)

p.s. I know I don't usually CC you (used to Cygwin etiquette, plus I 
know you read the list) but I'm going to make an exception; can you 
please tell me if this looks like it is still not making it to the list? 
Since I would obviously like to know why...

--
Matthew
"What's Cygwin?" you ask.
'Tis mostly absurd software
Concerning hippos.