Bertrik Sikken wrote:
I put my patch in the place mentioned above, but I guess you
probably already fixed most of the critical things.
Thanks for your help. In fact we did most of the things in parallel, but
cross-validating our work this way can only increase quality... I also
added the
Frank Zago wrote:
Hi Jens,
Jens Gulden wrote:
Peter Fales schrieb:
Now that's wierd. I was using a privately built copy of unpaper, but I
just unpacked the tarball and get the same results with the prebuilt
binary!
I just reproduced the problem on one remote Intel machine I have
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--040505090908050901030503
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bertrik Sikken wrote:
I'm working on a patch and I'll post it when I'm done at:
Peter Fales schrieb:
Now that's wierd. I was using a privately built copy of unpaper, but I
just unpacked the tarball and get the same results with the prebuilt binary!
I just reproduced the problem on one remote Intel machine I have access to.
Try to compile without any optimization (no
Thanks for all your help. I think we're getting closer. I'm using the
Makefile rules supplied with unpaper:
unpaper:
cc unpaper.c -o unpaper -lm
so I was already using no optimization. I was using gcc-3.2.2 which
is the default compiler on my system. I tried building
Peter Fales wrote:
Thanks for all your help. I think we're getting closer. I'm using the
Makefile rules supplied with unpaper:
unpaper:
cc unpaper.c -o unpaper -lm
so I was already using no optimization. I was using gcc-3.2.2 which
is the default compiler on my
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:25:42PM +0100, Bertrik Sikken wrote:
Try compiling it with compiler option --pedantic
That results in lots of warnings, of which some look very suspicious.
I' m not sure how big the stack is by default, but unpaper appears
to put quite a lot of local variables on
Hi Jens,
Jens Gulden wrote:
Peter Fales schrieb:
Now that's wierd. I was using a privately built copy of unpaper, but I
just unpacked the tarball and get the same results with the prebuilt
binary!
I just reproduced the problem on one remote Intel machine I have access to.
Try to
