In message <771c4a5451.mar...@bach.planiverse.com>
Martin Wuerthner <mar...@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <568e485451...@hobbes.bass-software.com>
> John Tytgat <john.tyt...@aaug.net> wrote:
>> In message <f526415451.mar...@bach.planiverse.com> you wrote:
>>> [...] So, I am wondering whether anyone has an idea which change could
>>> have caused such an effect. Has there been a change in output stream
>>> handling in Unixlib?
>> My first guess is indeed a possible regression (or latent bug now being
>> triggered) with UnixLib changes I made on 2 Jan 2010 and 21 Jan 2010 :
>> r4398 and r4459.
> OK, I will try a build using r4459, and if that still fails, with
> r4397. If your theory is correct then r4397 should work and r4459
> should fail.
I have completed the experiment and it is exactly as expected:
Building Ghostscript using GCCSDK r4397 results in a working
executable. Using GCCSDK r4459 results in an executable with broken
output.
Then, I tried building with r4398 and it still works, so r4398 was not
responsible. Finally, I tried r4458 and even that worked. I double
checked with r4459 and it fails. So, this proves that r4459 was
responsible for the problem.
Martin
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software mar...@mw-software.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
