Re: libposix build logs

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Bruno,

On 25 Dec 2010, at 21:42, Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
> Regarding your reports on glibc/Linux systems:
>>> Distcheck results by architecture and compiler:
>>> 
>>>    ix86 RHEL 3       gcc 3.2.3      (317 tests passed)
>>>    ix86 RHEL 4       gcc 3.4.6      (test-fcntl-h-c++.cc compile failed:
>>>                                      133: symbol `mknod' already defined)
>>>    ix86 RHEL 5       gcc 4.1.2      (rename, renameat)
>>>    ix86 SLED 10      gcc 4.1.2      (fchownat, rename, renameat)
>>>    x86_64 RHEL 3     gcc 3.2.3      (fprintf-posix2.sh)
>>>    x86_64 RHEL 4i    gcc 3.4.6      (test-fcntl-h-c++.cc compile failed:
>>>                                      124: symbol `mknod' already defined
>>>                                      149: symbol `lstat' already defined
>>>                                      172: symbol `fstat' already defined)
>>>    x86_64 RHEL 5     gcc 4.1.2      (dprintf-posix2.sh, fprintf-posix3.sh
>>>                                      rename, renameat)
>>>    x86_64 SLED 10    gcc 4.1.2      (rename, renameat)
> 
> At this point, all the bugs are fixed, except
>  - On the first machine type (x86 RHEL 3), I get the test failures
>    related to NFS timestamps, mentioned in
>    <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2010-11/msg00113.html>.
>  - I could never reproduce the *printf-posix*.sh failures. They could be
>    due to building libposix as a shared library.

That's great news, thanks for following up. As soon as I have time after the 
new year I will rerun the tests and let you know how I get on. I've seen quite 
a few patches go by in relation to my original reports; are you saying that 
(excepting the above) everything I reported should now be fixed? Or just the 
arches quoted above?

What is the status of the libposix branch now? Should I merge the tip of trunk 
into the topic branch before making a new libposix tarball for test purposes?

Cheers,
Gary
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (address@hidden)