[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes:
José Matos wrote:
This is not in the patch, is this already in?
The patch only shows the addition of __FreeBSD_kernel__ test.
No, it replaces __FREEBSD__ with __FreeBSD__. I didn't know it is so (and
actually I didn't find a reference),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jürgen Spitzmüller) writes:
> José Matos wrote:
>> This is not in the patch, is this already in?
>> The patch only shows the addition of __FreeBSD_kernel__ test.
>
> No, it replaces __FREEBSD__ with __FreeBSD__. I didn't know it is so (and
> actually I didn't find a
The attached patch seems to fix that bug finally, as Koji Yokota confirmed.
Actually, I'm not sure defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) is really needed -- this
basically identifies GNU/kFreeBSD (that doesn't have __FreeBSD__ defined).
The actual problem apparently was the casing of the macro.
José,
José Matos wrote:
This is not in the patch, is this already in?
The patch only shows the addition of __FreeBSD_kernel__ test.
No, it replaces __FREEBSD__ with __FreeBSD__. I didn't know it is so (and
actually I didn't find a reference), but obviously the case matters.
José, can this fo
On Friday 13 July 2007 13:41:20 Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
The attached patch seems to fix that bug finally, as Koji Yokota confirmed.
Actually, I'm not sure defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) is really needed -- this
basically identifies GNU/kFreeBSD (that doesn't have __FreeBSD__ defined).
It
The attached patch seems to fix that bug finally, as Koji Yokota confirmed.
Actually, I'm not sure defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) is really needed -- this
basically identifies GNU/kFreeBSD (that doesn't have __FreeBSD__ defined).
The actual problem apparently was the casing of the macro.
José,
José Matos wrote:
> This is not in the patch, is this already in?
> The patch only shows the addition of __FreeBSD_kernel__ test.
No, it replaces __FREEBSD__ with __FreeBSD__. I didn't know it is so (and
actually I didn't find a reference), but obviously the case matters.
> > José, can this
On Friday 13 July 2007 13:41:20 Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> The attached patch seems to fix that bug finally, as Koji Yokota confirmed.
>
> Actually, I'm not sure defined(__FreeBSD_kernel__) is really needed -- this
> basically identifies GNU/kFreeBSD (that doesn't have __FreeBSD__ defined).
It
Jean-Marc == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter == Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Is it correct that this line remains untouched?
Peter #if SIZEOF_WCHAR_T != 4 defined(__GNUC__)
Peter defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) __GNUC__ == 3 __GNUC_MINOR__ 4
Jean-Marc No, and
Jean-Marc == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[now with the patch!]
Peter == Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Is it correct that this line remains untouched?
Peter #if SIZEOF_WCHAR_T != 4 defined(__GNUC__)
Peter defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) __GNUC__ == 3
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 09:46:38 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Jose, do I still have time to commit the following patch?
Since I was not sure to get you, and due to my (extremely) busy schedule I
will commit this myself and release RC2 as soon as the tests finishes.
--
José Abílio
José == José Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
José On Wednesday 27 June 2007 09:46:38 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Jose, do I still have time to commit the following patch?
José Since I was not sure to get you, and due to my (extremely) busy
José schedule I will commit this myself and release
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Is it correct that this line remains untouched?
Peter> #if SIZEOF_WCHAR_T != 4 && defined(__GNUC__) &&
Peter> defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) && __GNUC__ == 3 &&
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[now with the patch!]
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Is it correct that this line remains untouched?
Peter> #if SIZEOF_WCHAR_T != 4 && defined(__GNUC__) &&
Peter> defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) &&
On Wednesday 27 June 2007 09:46:38 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Jose, do I still have time to commit the following patch?
Since I was not sure to get you, and due to my (extremely) busy schedule I
will commit this myself and release RC2 as soon as the tests finishes.
--
José Abílio
> "José" == José Matos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
José> On Wednesday 27 June 2007 09:46:38 Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>> Jose, do I still have time to commit the following patch?
José> Since I was not sure to get you, and due to my (extremely) busy
José> schedule I will commit this myself
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3537
This bug comes from the fact that FreeBSD (in it current incarnations
at least) does not have proper support for wchar_t.
I did not rename LIBC_WCTYPE_USES_UCS4 to something more readable like
USE_WCHAR_T. Should I?
Koji, does the patch work for
Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007 14:17 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3537
This bug comes from the fact that FreeBSD (in it current incarnations
at least) does not have proper support for wchar_t.
I did not rename LIBC_WCTYPE_USES_UCS4 to something more
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:39:05 Georg Baum wrote:
Yes. But I think that a comment should be added in configure.ac why FreeBSD
is excluded, probably pointing to the libstdc++ bug report (or the
lyx-devel thread). Then it will be easy to check whether the FreeBSD
exclusion can be removed or not
If the patch works, similar changes should be done to cmake and scons.
The scons part is easy:
Index: development/scons/SConstruct
===
--- development/scons/SConstruct(revision 18892)
+++ development/scons/SConstruct
Georg == Georg Baum [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Georg Yes. But I think that a comment should be added in configure.ac
Georg why FreeBSD is excluded, probably pointing to the libstdc++ bug
Georg report (or the lyx-devel thread). Then it will be easy to check
Georg whether the FreeBSD exclusion can
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
+/*
+ * the FreeBSD libc uses UCS4, but libstdc++ has no proper wchar_t
+ * support compiled in:
+ * http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#3_9
+ * And we are not interested at all what libc
+ * does: What
According to http://www.netbsd.org/about/roadmap.html, this is also
true for NetBSD, so I would also add !defined(__NetBSD__) there.
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
Bo
Bo Peng wrote:
According to http://www.netbsd.org/about/roadmap.html, this is also
true for NetBSD, so I would also add !defined(__NetBSD__) there.
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
Bo
Seems he is right:
http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html#sec23
And the patch.
Peter Kümmel wrote:
Bo Peng wrote:
According to http://www.netbsd.org/about/roadmap.html, this is also
true for NetBSD, so I would also add !defined(__NetBSD__) there.
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
Bo
Seems he is right:
http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html#sec23
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
When I google, I see a lot of
defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__OpenBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
so I guess we should use these forms. Also, has anyone checked open bsd?
Bo
On 6/26/07, Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
When I google, I see a lot of
defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__OpenBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
Of course I meant FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
Bo
Peter == Peter Kümmel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Peter Is it correct that this line remains untouched?
Peter #if SIZEOF_WCHAR_T != 4 defined(__GNUC__)
Peter defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) __GNUC__ == 3 __GNUC_MINOR__ 4
No, and I do not know how I missed it. I think it should be
#if !
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:19:47PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
On 6/26/07, Bo Peng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
When I google, I see a lot of
defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__OpenBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
Of course I meant
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3537
This bug comes from the fact that FreeBSD (in it current incarnations
at least) does not have proper support for wchar_t.
I did not rename LIBC_WCTYPE_USES_UCS4 to something more readable like
USE_WCHAR_T. Should I?
Koji, does the patch work for
Am Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007 14:17 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes:
>
> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3537
>
> This bug comes from the fact that FreeBSD (in it current incarnations
> at least) does not have proper support for wchar_t.
>
> I did not rename LIBC_WCTYPE_USES_UCS4 to something
On Tuesday 26 June 2007 14:39:05 Georg Baum wrote:
> Yes. But I think that a comment should be added in configure.ac why FreeBSD
> is excluded, probably pointing to the libstdc++ bug report (or the
> lyx-devel thread). Then it will be easy to check whether the FreeBSD
> exclusion can be removed or
If the patch works, similar changes should be done to cmake and scons.
The scons part is easy:
Index: development/scons/SConstruct
===
--- development/scons/SConstruct(revision 18892)
+++ development/scons/SConstruct
> "Georg" == Georg Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Georg> Yes. But I think that a comment should be added in configure.ac
Georg> why FreeBSD is excluded, probably pointing to the libstdc++ bug
Georg> report (or the lyx-devel thread). Then it will be easy to check
Georg> whether the FreeBSD
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 04:47:25PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> +/*
> + * the FreeBSD libc uses UCS4, but libstdc++ has no proper wchar_t
> + * support compiled in:
> + * http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#3_9
> + * And we are not interested at all what libc
> + *
According to http://www.netbsd.org/about/roadmap.html, this is also
true for NetBSD, so I would also add "&& !defined(__NetBSD__)" there.
Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
Bo
Bo Peng wrote:
>> According to http://www.netbsd.org/about/roadmap.html, this is also
>> true for NetBSD, so I would also add "&& !defined(__NetBSD__)" there.
>
> Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
>
> Bo
>
Seems he is right:
http://predef.sourceforge.net/preos.html#sec23
And
Peter Kümmel wrote:
> Bo Peng wrote:
>>> According to http://www.netbsd.org/about/roadmap.html, this is also
>>> true for NetBSD, so I would also add "&& !defined(__NetBSD__)" there.
>> Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
>>
>> Bo
>>
>
> Seems he is right:
>
> Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
>
When I google, I see a lot of
defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__OpenBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
so I guess we should use these forms. Also, has anyone checked open bsd?
Bo
On 6/26/07, Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
> >
When I google, I see a lot of
defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__OpenBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
Of course I meant FreeBSD, OpenBSD and NetBSD.
Bo
> "Peter" == Peter Kümmel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Is it correct that this line remains untouched?
Peter> #if SIZEOF_WCHAR_T != 4 && defined(__GNUC__) &&
Peter> defined(__GNUC_MINOR__) && __GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 4
No, and I do not know how I missed it. I think it should
On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 02:19:47PM -0500, Bo Peng wrote:
> On 6/26/07, Bo Peng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Are you sure about the name here? Not __NETBSD__?
> > > >
> >
> > When I google, I see a lot of
> >
> > defined (__FreeBSD__) || defined (__OpenBSD__) || defined(__OpenBSD__)
>
> Of
42 matches
Mail list logo
