Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 21:34:48 +0200: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 20:01:56 +0100: > > On 07.03.2011 21:47, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > >svn-bisect says this started in r1078366. > > > > > Hm. I'm unable to reproduce the issue here (64 bit linux). > > What's more bogus is that the code changed in 1078366 > > should not even get executed in your scenario. > > > > I'll double-check whether that revnum is the correct one.
It's not. (The checksum failure reproduces with r1078365.) Sorry. I'll dig further.
