On Sat, 14 Jun 2008, chromatic via RT wrote:
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 10:11:20 Andy Dougherty wrote:
This next patch does a little more cleanup on the attributes checking. I
revised config/auto/attributes.pm to use the existing Configure routines
cc_build() and conf-data_add() rather
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 10:11:20 Andy Dougherty wrote:
This next patch does a little more cleanup on the attributes checking. I
revised config/auto/attributes.pm to use the existing Configure routines
cc_build() and conf-data_add() rather than re-implementing them. I also
removed some now
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Mark Glines via RT wrote:
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:20:39 -0700
chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not exactly the same as a stringified hash. I think we can
just remove the cc_run() bits and be fine (at least, it worked for
me).
Indeed, with the attached patch
On 8/3/07, jerry gay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/3/07, via RT Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #44379]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL:
On Monday 06 August 2007 14:06:53 jerry gay wrote:
i think i've fixed it up as of r20521. let me know if it still behaves
unexpectedly.
I find these two lines confusing:
my %eval = eval cc_run();
return if !%eval;
cc_run returns a string; why evaluate it? Further, why assign the
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 02:40:06PM -0700, chromatic ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Monday 06 August 2007 14:06:53 jerry gay wrote:
i think i've fixed it up as of r20521. let me know if it still behaves
unexpectedly.
I find these two lines confusing:
my %eval = eval cc_run();
On Monday 06 August 2007 15:10:30 Andy Lester wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 02:40:06PM -0700, chromatic ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I find these two lines confusing:
my %eval = eval cc_run();
return if !%eval;
Have you looked at the string it returns? It looks like this:
(
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:20:39 -0700
chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Monday 06 August 2007 15:10:30 Andy Lester wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 02:40:06PM -0700, chromatic
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I find these two lines confusing:
my %eval = eval cc_run();
On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 15:20:39 -0700
chromatic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's not exactly the same as a stringified hash. I think we can
just remove the cc_run() bits and be fine (at least, it worked for
me).
Indeed, with the attached patch I have working attributes again.
Mark
Index:
On Monday 06 August 2007 22:25:06 Mark Glines wrote:
Indeed, with the attached patch I have working attributes again.
Works for me too. Applied as r20531.
-- c
does nothing for other compilers. Obviously, all the compiles fail,
since no test.c file is generated. I don't know, for example, if 'icc'
handles attributes, or if it might in the future.
icc handles all gcc attributes. I'd started digging into why the
attributes were being ignored by icc
On 8/3/07, via RT Andy Dougherty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #44379]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44379
The new attributes
# New Ticket Created by Andy Dougherty
# Please include the string: [perl #44379]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# URL: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=44379
The new attributes scanning ought to use its own test_c.in file, instead
of
13 matches
Mail list logo
