at present the i386 code does not support sse floating point, which is
not part of the standard i386 abi. while it may be desirable to
support it later, doing so will reduce performance and require some
tricks to probe if sse support is present.

this first commit is i386-only, but it should be trivial to port the
asm to x86_64.

even if size_t was 32-bit already, the fact that the value was
unsigned and that gcc is too stupid to figure out it would be positive
as a signed quantity (due to the immediately-prior arithmetic and
conditionals) results in gcc compiling the integer-to-float conversion
as zero extension to 64 bits followed by an "fildll" (64 bit)
instruction rather than a simple "fildl" (32 bit) instruction on x86.
reportedly fildll is very slow on certain p4-class machines; even if
not, the new code is slightly smaller.

looks like busybox is going to want it, and apparently some other
low-level network software does too...

unfortunately traditional i386 practice was to use "long" rather than
"int" for wchar_t, despite the latter being much more natural and
logical. we followed this practice, but it seems some compilers (clang
and maybe certain gcc builds or others too..?) have switched to using
int, resulting in spurious pointer type mismatches when L"..." wide
strings are used. the best solution I could find is to use the
compiler's definition of wchar_t if it exists, and otherwise fallback
to the traditional definition.

there's no point in duplicating this approach on 64-bit archs, as
their only 32-bit type is int.

this is not too ugly and should result in significant code size and
performance improvements for many programs.

basically there are 3 choices for how to implement this variable-size
string member:
1. C99 flexible array member: breaks using dirent.h with pre-C99 compiler.
2. old way: length-1 string: generates array bounds warnings in caller.
3. new way: length-NAME_MAX string. no problems, simplifies all code.

of course the usable part in the pointer returned by readdir might be
shorter than NAME_MAX+1 bytes, but that is allowed by the standard and
doesn't hurt anything.

this actually inadvertently disallows some valid patterns with
redundant / or * characters, but it's better than allowing unbounded
vla allocation.

eventually i'll write code to move the pattern to the stack and
eliminate redundancy to ensure that it fits in PATH_MAX at the
beginning of glob. this would also allow it to be modified in place
for passing to fnmatch rather than copied at each level of recursion.

there is a resource limit of 0 bits to store the concurrency level
requested. thus any positive level exceeds a resource limit, resulting
in EAGAIN. :-)

file actions are not yet implemented, but everything else should be
mostly complete and roughly correct.

also modify wcsncpy to use the same loop logic

the observed symptom was that the code was incorrectly rounding up
1.0625 to 1.063 despite the rounding mode being round-to-nearest with
ties broken by rounding to even last place. however, the code was just
not right in many respects, and i'm surprised it worked as well as it
did. this time i tested the values that end up in the variables round,
small, and the expression round+small, and all look good.

the new approach relies on the fact that the only ways to create
sigset_t objects without invoking UB are to use the sig*set()
functions, or from the masks returned by sigprocmask, sigaction, etc.
or in the ucontext_t argument to a signal handler. thus, as long as
sigfillset and sigaddset avoid adding the "protected" signals, there
is no way the application will ever obtain a sigset_t including these
bits, and thus no need to add the overhead of checking/clearing them
when sigprocmask or sigaction is called.

note that the old code actually *failed* to remove the bits from
sa_mask when sigaction was called.

the new implementations are also significantly smaller, simpler, and
faster due to ignoring the useless "GNU HURD signals" 65-1024, which
are not used and, if there's any sanity in the world, never will be
used.

these should be tweaked according to testing. offhand i know 1000 is
too low and 5000 is likely to be sufficiently high. consider trying to
add futexes to file locking, too...