GNU Core Utilities - Support: sr #107466, compatibility patch
You are not allowed to post comments on this tracker with your current authentication level.
sr #107466: compatibility patch
Submitter: | Adam Katz <khopesh> | ||
Submitted: | Fri 27 Aug 2010 08:25:31 PM UTC | ||
Category: | None | Priority: | 5 - Normal |
Severity: | 3 - Normal | Status: | None |
Privacy: | Public | Assigned to: | None |
Open/Closed: | Open | Operating System: | *BSD |
Attached Files
file #21325: coreutils-8.5.patch added by khopesh (21KiB - text/x-patch - moved a bunch of declarations to tops of functions and scopes)
Depends on the following items: None found
Items that depend on this one: None found
Carbon-Copy List
There are 0 votes so far. Votes easily highlight which items people would like to see resolved in priority, independently of the priority of the item set by tracker managers.
Follows 1 latest change.
Date | Changed by | Updated Field | Previous Value | => | Replaced by |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2010-08-27 | khopesh | Attached File | - | ![]() |
Added coreutils-8.5.patch, #21325 |
(I apparently can't create a bug or patch for this project, so I'm posting here instead.)
Aren't variables always supposed to be declared at the top of a function or the beginning of a scope area? I'm 6+ years rusty on C code, but compiling coreutils on FreeBSD 4.11 with GCC 2.95.4 produced a LOT of undefined variable errors.
Another issue is with verify(), which I assume declares variables in it as well and thus also needs to be at the top of a function or scope.
I've attached the modifications I needed to make it work (note, I obtained the source from Debian's coreutils-8.5-1 package, which might include some of their own patches).
Please pay extra attention to shred.c as I'm not sure if moving that verify call is safe. If not, some extra curly brackets on the original code should suffice.