I believe it shows up as an attachment on the http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=6186 with my last email : [du_add_d.patch (application/octet-stream, attachment)]
I can also post the patch directly instead of as a file attachment if that is easier. Just doing a normal #define DU_DEBUG 1 was giving me an error about lower case function fts_cross_check not existing. Is there a better way for me to test this to ensure my modification of the debug flag to --debug did not negatively impact past work? thanks! -jon On May 14, 2010, at 1:06 AM, Jim Meyering wrote: > Jon Ringuette wrote: >> So here is my first whack at it. One thing to note is there was a DU_DEBUG >> optional define that defined a -d flag to use for debugging. It seemed like >> using -d would be more useful for everyone to use for depth then for debug >> so I modified the slightly oddly thrown in debug stuff to now work with >> --debug instead. Though when I actually define DU_DEBUG so the #if DU_DEBUG >> is picked up and used it complains about the function missing so I'm kind of >> curios if this has worked for awhile. > > Moving debug functionality to --debug is fine. > Since it's compiled out and I haven't made an effort > to enable it otherwise, it hasn't kept pace with other > changes. No big deal. However, it was essential during > the last round of big changes, so I'm not ready to remove > it altogether just yet. > >> Anyways any feedback or recommendations would be greatly appreciated so this >> has a better chance of making its way into the release. >> >> Thank you for your time on this matter! > > Your patch did not reach the list.
