Hi,
We weren't properly handling mouse event modifiers. I've committed two
tests to Mauve gnu.testlet.java.awt.event.MouseEvent.modifiersEx,
gnu.testlet.java.awt.event.MouseEvent.modifiers which demonstrate the
expected behaviour. With this patch these two tests pass.
Tom
2005-09-11 Thomas Fi
Hi Tom,
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:48 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Mark> It does mean a change in any of the deeply nested packages triggers
> Mark> re-compilation of a few more files in its 'parent-package'. But I feel
> Mark> the overall
> "Mark" == Mark Wielaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mark> It does mean a change in any of the deeply nested packages triggers
Mark> re-compilation of a few more files in its 'parent-package'. But I feel
Mark> the overall compile time reduction is worth it.
Does it noticeably impact memory u
Hi,
The compile time when using gcj is pretty large. This is partly because
gcj gets invoked 254 times since that is the number of packages we have.
The following patch collapses all packages > 3 "levels" into their
parents bringing the number of .list files down to 145. This reduces
the make tim
On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 14:24 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Disturbing. It also breaks (in the same way as reported above) with
> 'gcj (GCC) 4.0.2 20050908 (prerelease)' and 'gcj (GCC) 4.0.2 20050821
> (prerelease) (Debian 4.0.1-6)' so this seems to be a regression from
> 4.0-preX to 4.0.x.
>
> I am
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 17:53 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > What do you think of the following patch to implement it as autoconf
> > macro?
>
> This looks good and seems like it is simplifies the current
> code and comments too because it is much simpler in general.
Thanks. Committed as follows:
On Sep 11, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 21:47 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
Maybe a better way to make a small C file which tests the GCC version
that way? You can compile it with the gcj driver so it should be no
problems with having two different v
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 21:47 -0400, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> Maybe a better way to make a small C file which tests the GCC version
> that way? You can compile it with the gcj driver so it should be no
> problems with having two different versions of GCC installed.
> And this will get awa
Hi,
We would always try to close a FileChannelImpl when it was finalized
even if it was never properly closed. Although this is not fatal it did
can generate lots of spurious close() calls on the invalid -1 file
descriptor, resulting in IOExceptions, if an application tried to open
lots of non-exi
David Lichteblau wrote:
jcl.c currently tries to turn a local reference into a global one after
having deleted the local reference.
(*env)->DeleteLocalRef(env, rawDataClass);
rawDataClass = (*env)->NewGlobalRef (env, rawDataClass);
Is my interpretation right that this is not allowed b
Hi,
jcl.c currently tries to turn a local reference into a global one after
having deleted the local reference.
(*env)->DeleteLocalRef(env, rawDataClass);
rawDataClass = (*env)->NewGlobalRef (env, rawDataClass);
Is my interpretation right that this is not allowed by the JNI spec?
(The
11 matches
Mail list logo
