On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
Let's get this patch through first and others to handle the old assertions
can flow in over the next week.
Yes, looks good to me. Go push it.
More comments below.
Tim
On Friday 21 November 2014 15:46:36 Darshit Shah wrote:
On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
>On Friday 2
On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
Hi Darshit,
the same problem on a different machine (though also Debian unstable).
I also ran
>> make maintainer-clean
>> ./bootstrap
>> ./configure
>> make
Maybe something is missing in your patches ?
Or a make bug ? (make 4.0-8)
You're right. I tried a fresh cl
Hi Darshit,
the same problem on a different machine (though also Debian unstable).
I also ran
> >> make maintainer-clean
> >> ./bootstrap
> >> ./configure
> >> make
Maybe something is missing in your patches ?
Or a make bug ? (make 4.0-8)
> >IMHO, version.c and version.h has wrong dependencies
On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
On Friday 21 November 2014 19:58:46 Darshit Shah wrote:
On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
>On Friday 21 November 2014 17:13:22 Darshit Shah wrote:
>> Clang provides some warnings for missing extern declarations for
>> non-static
>> variables. The following two patches clear
Thanking You,
Darshit Shah
Sent from mobile device. Please excuse my brevity
On 21-Nov-2014 8:45 pm, "Tim Ruehsen" wrote:
>
> I had two issues with the above mentioned test.
>
> 1. XFAIL is not common to people - we had some confusion on the mailing
list.
Xfail is standard parlance for expected f
I had two issues with the above mentioned test.
1. XFAIL is not common to people - we had some confusion on the mailing list.
2. XFAIL is true for a test even if it fails out of *any* reason.
Example: When testing on a virtual machine without python3, 'make check' still
happily reports XFAIL: 1 in
On Friday 21 November 2014 19:58:46 Darshit Shah wrote:
> On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
> >On Friday 21 November 2014 17:13:22 Darshit Shah wrote:
> >> Clang provides some warnings for missing extern declarations for
> >> non-static
> >> variables. The following two patches clear most of them. I can
On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
On Friday 21 November 2014 17:13:22 Darshit Shah wrote:
Clang provides some warnings for missing extern declarations for non-static
variables. The following two patches clear most of them. I can currently see
only more such warning which is caused by build_info.c. To
On Friday 21 November 2014 17:13:22 Darshit Shah wrote:
> Clang provides some warnings for missing extern declarations for non-static
> variables. The following two patches clear most of them. I can currently see
> only more such warning which is caused by build_info.c. To fix this,
> someone will
Thanks for quick response, works and looks good :). Sorry for causing this mess
with initial patch... missed that warning on x86... :(
Thanks
Jakub
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Ruehsen"
To: bug-wget@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 10:55:33 AM
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] ARRG (was
> Let's get this patch through first and others to handle the old assertions
> can flow in over the next week.
Yes, looks good to me. Go push it.
More comments below.
Tim
On Friday 21 November 2014 15:46:36 Darshit Shah wrote:
> On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
> >On Friday 21 November 2014 13:19:18
Clang provides some warnings for missing extern declarations for non-static
variables. The following two patches clear most of them. I can currently see
only more such warning which is caused by build_info.c. To fix this, someone
will have to hack on the build_info.px perl script.
--
Thanking
On 11/21, Tim Rühsen wrote:
On Friday 21 November 2014 13:19:18 Darshit Shah wrote:
On 11/20, Ángel González wrote:
>On 20/11/14 15:29, Darshit Shah wrote:
>>--- a/src/progress.c
>>+++ b/src/progress.c
>>@@ -992,6 +992,7 @@ create_image (struct bar_progress *bp, double
>>dl_total_time, bool done
On Friday 21 November 2014 13:19:18 Darshit Shah wrote:
> On 11/20, Ángel González wrote:
> >On 20/11/14 15:29, Darshit Shah wrote:
> >>--- a/src/progress.c
> >>+++ b/src/progress.c
> >>@@ -992,6 +992,7 @@ create_image (struct bar_progress *bp, double
> >>dl_total_time, bool done)>>
> >> {
> >
On Friday 21 November 2014 10:36:58 Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2014 10:12:18 Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > > Jakub, since I have no 'unsigned char' system running, could you amend
> > > and
> > > test the check so that it does not give a comp
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
Yes, but you don't need ustr.
If you don't mind, I would apply this
Ah yes, I certainly won't mind. Go ahead!
--
/ daniel.haxx.se
On Friday 21 November 2014 10:12:18 Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> > Jakub, since I have no 'unsigned char' system running, could you amend and
> > test the check so that it does not give a compiler warning on 'signed'
> > systems ?
>
> How about always doing th
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
Jakub, since I have no 'unsigned char' system running, could you amend and
test the check so that it does not give a compiler warning on 'signed'
systems ?
How about always doing the check using unsigned? See attachment.
--
/ daniel.haxx.seFrom 78a8b
On Friday 21 November 2014 03:49:06 Jakub Cajka wrote:
> Sorry for more spamming, I'm to slow..., already sent, the same request...
> Thanks for attention :).
Jakub, since I have no 'unsigned char' system running, could you amend and
test the check so that it does not give a compiler warning on '
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Jakub Cajka wrote:
You just make Wget fail on systems with char being unsigned (arm64, ppc64).
That is the reason why this line has been introduced and the warning not
being fixed !!!
It was a bug fix some just weeks ago (I remember someone from Redhat !?).
So please add
Sorry for more spamming, I'm to slow..., already sent, the same request...
Thanks for attention :).
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Ruehsen"
To: bug-wget@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, November 21, 2014 9:42:37 AM
Subject: Re: [Bug-wget] ARRG (was: remote_to_utf8: cut off part of condition
al
Arrgh!! I didn't realize that.
I'll revert this commit immediately.
On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 2:12 PM, Tim Ruehsen wrote:
> On Friday 21 November 2014 13:56:01 Darshit Shah wrote:
>> On 11/21, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
>> >Hey
>> >
>> >Attached is a tiny patch that fixes a compiler warning as the rig
Hello,
please, note that this change(commit 1553c70961d05ffeb15780d0d1d58f991d9a6c66)
breaks wget on platforms(arm, ppc, s390...) with unsigned char, as assuming
that char is signed is wrong(C standard is not specifying sign of char...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2054939/is-char-signed-or
On Friday 21 November 2014 13:56:01 Darshit Shah wrote:
> On 11/21, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
> >Hey
> >
> >Attached is a tiny patch that fixes a compiler warning as the right
> >part of the condition always evaluates to true when a signed char is
> >checked if it is larger than 127.
>
> Some would t
On 11/21, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Hey
Attached is a tiny patch that fixes a compiler warning as the right
part of the condition always evaluates to true when a signed char is
checked if it is larger than 127.
Some would term this as defensive programming. Though I think if a signed char
were
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014, Daniel Stenberg wrote:
Attached is a tiny patch that fixes a compiler warning as the right part of
the condition always evaluates to true when a signed char is checked if it
is larger than 127.
Silly me, the patch title is correct. It always evaluates to *false*...
--
Hey
Attached is a tiny patch that fixes a compiler warning as the right part of
the condition always evaluates to true when a signed char is checked if it is
larger than 127.
--
/ daniel.haxx.seFrom 15ef60d11b5444e005414ef513871de564eea18f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Daniel Stenberg
Dat
27 matches
Mail list logo
