On Friday 16 November 2007 17:58:59 James Keenan wrote:
Failed tonight on Linux. The failures appear to follow a pattern.
Here is output of 'prove -v':
[li11-226:parrot] 514 $ prove -v t/src/intlist.t
t/src/intlist1..4
# 'cc -L/usr/local/lib -Wl,-E t/src/intlist_1.o
On 17/11/2007, James E Keenan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Paul Cochrane wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Paul Cochrane
# Please include the string: [perl #47523]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47523
On Thu Oct 25 08:41:51 2007, ptc wrote:
In tools/build/pbc2c.pl there is the todo item:
/* TODO make also a shared variant of PackFile_new */
in the context of creating a new PackFile. This needs to be implemented.
Does anyone know what this actually means? I'm familiar with the
PackFile
On Mon Nov 12 10:47:41 2007, doughera wrote:
On a fresh checkout today, t/configure/107-inter_progs-*.t all fail
with identical output:
[snip]
Compilation failed with 'cc'
1..21
However, the test harness still reports this as 'ok'!
The problem here is twofold: First,
Hi,
As far as I remember, and can see in PDD15, if you want to modify a class
after it has been instantiated you should clone it and do the
modifications to the clone. Therefore, #46097 and #46093 are resolvable by
removing the comment that dates back to before the decision and changing
the
On Sat Nov 17 00:21:58 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm even more curious why the tests *pass* on x86 Darwin.
They pass on ppc Darwin as well.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 10:43:25AM +0100, Paul Cochrane wrote:
One nit I have about C-code is that I think there should be a space
after commas and semicolons.
I am not a C-coder, so I don't have an authoritative opinion about this.
But I would like to ask: In this a common
I have patched Pugs for compilation with GHC 6.8.1. However, the changes
break the 6.6.1 build (a.o. because of the change in the bytestring API and
the way wobbly types are handled).
So do we stick with 6.6.1 or upgrade to 6.8.1?
Cheers,
Wim
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007, James Keenan via RT wrote:
Do you recall the command-line options you provided to Configure.pl for
this?
I used something like
perl5.8 Configure.pl --cc=gcc --link=gcc --ld=gcc --ask
(the --ask is because I also changed the ccflags, ldflags, and libs to
match
On Saturday 17 November 2007 03:05:35 [EMAIL PROTECTED] via RT wrote:
On Thu Oct 25 08:41:51 2007, ptc wrote:
In tools/build/pbc2c.pl there is the todo item:
/* TODO make also a shared variant of PackFile_new */
in the context of creating a new PackFile. This needs to be implemented.
On Saturday 17 November 2007 05:39:39 James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Sat Nov 17 00:21:58 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm even more curious why the tests *pass* on x86 Darwin.
They pass on ppc Darwin as well.
Hm, does your Makefile contain -fvisibility=hidden in the CFLAGS line?
-- c
On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:50 PM, chromatic via RT wrote:
On Saturday 17 November 2007 05:39:39 James Keenan via RT wrote:
On Sat Nov 17 00:21:58 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm even more curious why the tests *pass* on x86 Darwin.
They pass on ppc Darwin as well.
Hm, does your Makefile
On Saturday 17 November 2007 11:56:59 James E Keenan wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:50 PM, chromatic via RT wrote:
Hm, does your Makefile contain -fvisibility=hidden in the CFLAGS
line?
No.
There's the problem them. Assuming you're using gcc 4.x, you should be
getting that hint. When
On Nov 17, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Andy Dougherty via RT wrote:
I used something like
perl5.8 Configure.pl --cc=gcc --link=gcc --ld=gcc --ask
(the --ask is because I also changed the ccflags, ldflags, and libs to
match gcc, and the --ask version prompts with a default that is
almost,
On Nov 17, 2007, at 3:22 PM, chromatic via RT wrote:
On Saturday 17 November 2007 11:56:59 James E Keenan wrote:
On Nov 17, 2007, at 2:50 PM, chromatic via RT wrote:
Hm, does your Makefile contain -fvisibility=hidden in the CFLAGS
line?
No.
There's the problem them. Assuming you're
At 4:02 PM + 11/17/07, Wim Vanderbauwhede wrote:
I have patched Pugs for compilation with GHC 6.8.1. However, the changes
break the 6.6.1 build (a.o. because of the change in the bytestring API and
the way wobbly types are handled).
So do we stick with 6.6.1 or upgrade to 6.8.1?
Cheers,
# New Ticket Created by Aaron Crane
# Please include the string: [perl #47540]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47540
The attached patch adds PARROT_API to two IO-related symbols. This
makes the
On Saturday 17 November 2007 08:24:35 Aaron Crane wrote:
The attached patch adds PARROT_API to two IO-related symbols. This
makes the following tests in t/src/io.t pass for me on Linux x86 with
gcc 4.1.3:
not ok 16 - PIO_make_offset
not ok 17 - PIO_seek
not ok 19 - stdio-layer
On Saturday 17 November 2007 12:35:34 James E Keenan wrote:
There's the problem them. Assuming you're using gcc 4.x,
I'm not.
Remember all that problem I was having at the hackathon getting my
first build of Parrot. You and Chip and subsequently Coke diagnosed
it as due to my botched
On Saturday 17 November 2007 01:43:25 Paul Cochrane wrote:
That's why I posted a patch to the list, so that this could be
discussed. My opinion is that code is easier to read if there are
spaces after commas, and spaces after semicolons (especially in for
loops).
+1
-- c
On Friday 16 November 2007 06:22:27 Andy Dougherty wrote:
For the first time ever, I was able to successfully complete these two
tests:
t/compilers/pge/p5regex/p5rx.ok
355/960 skipped: various reasons
t/compilers/pge/p6regex/01-regex.ok
On Saturday 17 November 2007 14:40:07 chromatic wrote:
The patch looks perfect and it will make the tests pass, but I think the
tests are doing the wrong thing, just like the intlist tests.
... and, by the way, there's no way you could have known this just by looking
at the tests, so your
Apropos of my previous post: attached is a small file which describes
the various prompts posed in the 'inter::' configuration steps. On the
basis of the file's contents, I suspect it would not be difficult to put
them all into a method which, if the --ask option were specified, would
be called
# New Ticket Created by James Keenan
# Please include the string: [perl #47560]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=47560
Coke reported this evening that 'make realclean' was not exiting
cleanly:
08:18
24 matches
Mail list logo
