Roman Yakovenko wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:36 AM, Brad King <[email protected]> wrote: >> Roman Yakovenko wrote: >>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Brad King <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Oops, you're right, sorry. Anyway, the output doesn't actually change. >>>> It just suppresses the error that the OP saw. >>> There are some changes in the output. May be not in the format, but in >>> the content. For example classes have different members set. >>> >>> P.S. I run my tests against new gccxml and few of them failed. I will >>> investigate the failures tomorrow (pretty sure they are my fault). >> Can you please send me a small example of what has changed? I want to >> make sure I didn't break the original fix with this. > > No, I don't have a small example :-(. Let me investigate this and I > will come back to you tomorrow.
Okay, I updated the cvs_revision anyway: /cvsroot/GCC_XML/gccxml/GCC/gcc/cp/xml.c,v <-- xml.c new revision: 1.126; previous revision: 1.125 -Brad _______________________________________________ gccxml mailing list [email protected] http://www.gccxml.org/mailman/listinfo/gccxml
