Re: [PATCH] doc: AC_*_TOOL does not canonicalize the prefix

Hello, On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 12:12:50AM +0100, Benoit Sigoure wrote: >> Then I tried to correct that and "reset" the remote repo. >> I tried git-reset and "git-push -f" but the server has refused that. > > Don't do that. [...] you are right, of course. I'll remember that. > Meaning? What ha

Re: Autotest function usage

Hi Ralf, On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:24:14AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > If you want to get crazy, you can let awk exit after extracting the last > needed test. that would be hard to resist! Who knows, perhaps the attached one liner is enough? Stepan diff --git a/lib/autotest/general.m4 b/li

Re: [0/18] new argv_ref branch for m4 speedup

Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 05:12:27AM CET: > > I've been working on this for over a month, now, and am finally happy > enough with my series of patches to post it as a new branch named > 'argv_ref'. I still need to write the ChangeLogs, perform additional > regression te

Re: Autotest function usage

Hi Stepan, * Stepan Kasal wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:11:30PM CET: > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:24:14AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > If you want to get crazy, you can let awk exit after extracting the last > > needed test. > > that would be hard to resist! > > Who knows, perhaps the at

Re: Autotest function usage

Who knows, perhaps the attached one liner is enough? Yes, it is. More precisely, it was, at the time that code was current. I don't mind such a change (except you need to forward port it now), but apparently Paolo seemed to think it was ugly for some reason. Me? :-) Paolo

Re: Autotest function usage

* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:10:41PM CET: > > >I don't mind such a change (except you need to forward port it now), but > >apparently Paolo seemed to think it was ugly for some reason. > > Me? :-) I guess I overlooked that smiley in:

Re: Autotest function usage

Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:10:41PM CET: I don't mind such a change (except you need to forward port it now), but apparently Paolo seemed to think it was ugly for some reason. Me? :-) I guess I overlooked that smiley in:

Re: Autotest function usage

* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:26:48PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Paolo Bonzini wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:10:41PM CET: > >>>I don't mind such a change (except you need to forward port it now), but > >>>apparently Paolo seemed to think it was ugly for some reason. >

Re: Fix IRIX testsuite debugging failures: $0 in functions.

Hello Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:17:51AM CET: > According to Ralf Wildenhues on 11/19/2007 1:26 PM: > > Do not use $0 inside a function, as IRIX sh will set that to the > > function name rather than the script invocation name. > > Let's mention that in the manual.

Re: Fix IRIX testsuite debugging failures: $0 in functions.

On Nov 20, 2007, at 10:51 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: diff --git a/doc/autoconf.texi b/doc/autoconf.texi index 7f3428a..26410c9 100644 --- a/doc/autoconf.texi +++ b/doc/autoconf.texi @@ -13525,6 +13516,46 @@ This variable is an alias to @samp{$?} for @code{zsh} (at least 3.1.6), hence read-on

Re: Fix IRIX testsuite debugging failures: $0 in functions.

Benoit Sigoure lrde.epita.fr> writes: > > +$ @kbd{f () @{ :; @}; f=; f} > > I think there is a trailing brace here: `f}' Nope, this one's fine. There is an outer @kbd{}, and an inner f(){:;};, where the inner {} need texinfo quoting. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.in-ulm.de/ /~mascheck/ /bour

Re: Fix IRIX testsuite debugging failures: $0 in functions.

On Nov 21, 2007, at 12:47 AM, Eric Blake wrote: Benoit Sigoure lrde.epita.fr> writes: +$ @kbd{f () @{ :; @}; f=; f} I think there is a trailing brace here: `f}' Nope, this one's fine. There is an outer @kbd{}, and an inner f() {:;};, where the inner {} need texinfo quoting. Heh, my e