On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:08 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
>>
>> Could we add some kind of notice, at least temporarily while under
>> development?
>
> r7 should work.
It does, thanks.
-Tom
--
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:00 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
>
> Could we add some kind of notice, at least temporarily while under
> development?
r7 should work.
Cliff
--
Go from Idea to Many App Stores Faster with Intel(R
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>> ...
> Does r1 fix it? (You won't see it listed in the summary
Could we add some kind of notice, at least temporarily while under development?
Checking the build...
Works great s
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Christopher Sean Morrison
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
...
>> I'm not sure what to do about their xml docs yet--we may be able to
>> incorporate them--I'll look into that later.
>
> I suggest ignoring.
Okay!
...
> the example program
On Nov 23, 2015, at 1:08 PM, Tom Browder wrote:
> Well, except for the BIG one, I would like to leave them in. I've
> tested the suite in a separate install and they run VERY fast.
How big is it in terms of #files and du -ks?
> Is there any way to get the BIG file out of the repo?
Yes, the re
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>
>> Actually, there is just one BSON binary test file that is 17 Mb
>> (stackoverflow.bson)!
>
> Do we need their tests? I left them in in case you needed them up
> front to verify them
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> Actually, there is just one BSON binary test file that is 17 Mb
> (stackoverflow.bson)!
Do we need their tests? I left them in in case you needed them up
front to verify them, but I would also be fine with stripping them
out.
Theoretically
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> ...
>> I'm starting a build to see what happens...
>
> As expected, libbson was not built.
Does r1 fix it? (You won't see it listed in the summary - by
default, we only report on a subset of the 3rd party builds.)
Cliff
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
...
> Cliff, thanks for your help! Frankly, I think I should have started
> work with BSON before jumping in to include it in our code base (and I
> should have checked the size, too, but I think most of that is from
> binary test files).
Actua
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
...
>>> Give r66656 a try.
>
> Got a clean configure, but no indication libbson will be used:
...
> I'm starting a build to see what
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:50 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
>> Tom,
>>
>> Give r66656 a try.
Got a clean configure, but no indication libbson will be used:
Compile Tcl : ON
Compile Tk ..
On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 6:56 AM, Tom Browder wrote:
>> Give r66656 a try.
>
> I forgot to ask about the top-level "INSTALL" and "configure" files.
...
> auto-generated). I got a conflict on update and marked it resolved
> but the update deleted them!
I reverted them and that seemed to work.
-To
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Give r66656 a try.
I forgot to ask about the top-level "INSTALL" and "configure" files.
I remember having trouble with them in the past as far as whether they
are supposed to be versioned or not (I think they are both
auto-generate
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> Tom,
>
> Give r66656 a try.
Got it--thanks a heap!
> By the way, have you had a chance to look at the new bu_opt API? I'm
> curious what you think of it.
I've been watching it a bit, but have no real opinion yet. Is it
amenable to any a
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 10:01 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> OK, a little more info - apparently -lrt is needed for clock_gettime
> on linux, but only for glibc prior to 2.17 (came out in Dec. 2012, so
> the removal of the need is quite recent.)
>
> Based on the code, it looks like it will fall back t
Tom,
Give r66656 a try.
By the way, have you had a chance to look at the new bu_opt API? I'm
curious what you think of it.
Cheers,
CY
On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Clifford Yapp wrote:
> OK, a little more info - apparently -lrt is needed for clock_gettime
> on linux, but only for glibc p
OK, a little more info - apparently -lrt is needed for clock_gettime
on linux, but only for glibc prior to 2.17 (came out in Dec. 2012, so
the removal of the need is quite recent.)
Based on the code, it looks like it will fall back to gettimeofday if
clock_gettime isn't available. Also, I don't s
Erm. Am I reading this correctly and they want to use the system "RT" library?
Can we mix the system librt.so and our own librt?
Cliff
--
Go from Idea to Many App Stores Faster with Intel(R) XDK
Give your users amazing
If CMake Master Cliff has to time to get the libbson build working in
branch 'binary-attributes', src/other/libbson, I will be eternally
grateful and will award a couple of beers or other beverage of choice
the next time I see him!
Cheers, and down the hatch!
-Tom
---
19 matches
Mail list logo
