Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
John == John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:01:41PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
... and now it's gone. 0.88.9, gcc 3.0 ... Still bombs here with
0.89.5, gcc 3.0 ... ,
John can others test please (JMarc, you don't get it
Dekel Tsur wrote:
The problem is probably due to the compiler in Redhat
Get the latest updates for the compiler.
I have gcc-2.96-81. The last RedHat update is gcc-2.96-85; do you think I have a chance
to see any difference with it?
You can also try to compile without
optimizations (do setenv
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:31PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
This is smelling like an uninitialized variable.
I don't think it's that simple a bug. I suspect an xforms bug of some kind,
I'll see if I can get the bug again with a different version of xforms ...
john
--
Voodoo Programming:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:28:08PM +0200, Philippe Charpentier wrote:
I have gcc-2.96-81. The last RedHat update is gcc-2.96-85; do you think I
have a chance
to see any difference with it?
maybe not in this circumstance but in general 81 has many bugs fixed by 85 ...
it is a definitely
John Levon wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:31PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
This is smelling like an uninitialized variable.
I don't think it's that simple a bug. I suspect an xforms bug of some kind,
I'll see if I can get the bug again with a different version of xforms ...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:44PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
[...]
Talking about coding rather than user input. IMO, these fields of the
dialog shouldn't be going anywhere near the input() function.
the problem is here :
352 if
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Dekel Tsur wrote:
I'm not against the option of generating a latex code that doesn't use fancy
packages. However, I'm not sure that the best way is to have a dialog in which
you can disable each package individually.
One option is to have a --compatibility flag, namely
John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:44PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
(simply typing "my" infront of "pipe"), I cannot [Save] or [Apply] that change
because both buttons are still disabled. This is not the correct behaviour to
my opinion, since I have changed the pipe in a
Hi,
A few more mathed bugs (| denotes cursor as usual) in current
1.2.0cvs:
* backspace in $2^{x|}$ makes $x|$ (i.e., kills script inset). Very
annoying when changing scripts. Perhaps require a second backspace
to delete the inset, as done for parenthesis?
* C-v always pastes into the
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> John> On Sat, Jul 21, 2001 at 10:01:41PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> >> > ... and now it's gone. 0.88.9, gcc 3.0 ... Still bombs here with
> >> 0.89.5, gcc 3.0 ... ,
>
> John> can others test please
Dekel Tsur wrote:
>The problem is probably due to the compiler in Redhat
>
>Get the latest updates for the compiler.
>
I have gcc-2.96-81. The last RedHat update is gcc-2.96-85; do you think I have a chance
to see any difference with it?
> You can also try to compile without
>optimizations (do
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:31PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
> This is smelling like an uninitialized variable.
I don't think it's that simple a bug. I suspect an xforms bug of some kind,
I'll see if I can get the bug again with a different version of xforms ...
john
--
"Voodoo
On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 07:28:08PM +0200, Philippe Charpentier wrote:
> I have gcc-2.96-81. The last RedHat update is gcc-2.96-85; do you think I
> have a chance
> to see any difference with it?
maybe not in this circumstance but in general 81 has many bugs fixed by 85 ...
it is a definitely
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2001 at 02:50:31PM -0300, Garst R. Reese wrote:
>
> > This is smelling like an uninitialized variable.
>
> I don't think it's that simple a bug. I suspect an xforms bug of some kind,
> I'll see if I can get the bug again with a different version of xforms
On Sun, 22 Jul 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:44PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
[...]
> > Talking about coding rather than user input. IMO, these fields of the
> > dialog shouldn't be going anywhere near the input() function.
>
> the problem is here :
>
> 352 if
On Sat, 21 Jul 2001, Dekel Tsur wrote:
> I'm not against the option of generating a latex code that doesn't use fancy
> packages. However, I'm not sure that the best way is to have a dialog in which
> you can disable each package individually.
> One option is to have a --compatibility flag,
John Levon wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 19, 2001 at 05:01:44PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > > (simply typing "my" infront of "pipe"), I cannot [Save] or [Apply] that change
> > > because both buttons are still disabled. This is not the correct behaviour to
> > > my opinion, since I have changed the
Hi,
A few more mathed bugs ("|" denotes cursor as usual) in current
1.2.0cvs:
* in $2^{x|}$ makes $x|$ (i.e., kills script inset). Very
annoying when changing scripts. Perhaps require a second
to delete the inset, as done for parenthesis?
* C-v always pastes into the end of the current
18 matches
Mail list logo
