Martin Sebor wrote:
> Andrew Black wrote:
>> I reviewed the README again, and I'm seeing a few nits, but I don't
>> think they're worth holding the release up for (someone else may
>> disagree).
>>
>> I feel the first paragraph of section 4.4 has a poorly worded or
>> inaccurate description of wher
Mark Brown wrote:
Other than some warnings gcc 4.1.2 on Linux worked fine this time.
I tried Intel 10.0 and found another test that gave a compiler error.
I didn't investigate it in great detail but it looks like a problem
in the test rather than a compiler bug. In any event, I don't see it
as a
Andrew Black wrote:
I reviewed the README again, and I'm seeing a few nits, but I don't
think they're worth holding the release up for (someone else may disagree).
I feel the first paragraph of section 4.4 has a poorly worded or
inaccurate description of where the rwtest library lives.
I'm not
I reviewed the README again, and I'm seeing a few nits, but I don't
think they're worth holding the release up for (someone else may disagree).
I feel the first paragraph of section 4.4 has a poorly worded or
inaccurate description of where the rwtest library lives. I also wonder
if the test harn
Other than some warnings gcc 4.1.2 on Linux worked fine this time.
I tried Intel 10.0 and found another test that gave a compiler error.
I didn't investigate it in great detail but it looks like a problem
in the test rather than a compiler bug. In any event, I don't see it
as a blocker for the rel
Tested with gcc 4.1.1 on Fedora Core 6 (no BUILDTYPE or BUILDMODE
just for kicks). Except for a few warnings during compilation there were no
(unexpected) problems or surprises.
+1.
As reminder, the vote closes at 5PM today (http://tinyurl.com/2h5f73).
It would be nice to get a few more votes in
> -Original Message-
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 1:55 AM
> To: stdcxx-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [VOTE] release stdcxx 4.2.0 (candidate 7)
>
> I just created the next stdcxx 4.2.0 release candidate tag,
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
Martin Sebor wrote:
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
+1.
Thanks!
Just for the record, what particular platform (compiler/OS) and
configuration did you test the tarball on?
Slack 10.1, gcc 4.2.0, 11s. I've got:
PROGRAM SUMMARY:
Programs:187
Non-zero exit status
Martin Sebor wrote:
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
+1.
Thanks!
Just for the record, what particular platform (compiler/OS) and
configuration did you test the tarball on?
Slack 10.1, gcc 4.2.0, 11s. I've got:
PROGRAM SUMMARY:
Programs:187
Non-zero exit status: 0
Signalled:
Liviu Nicoara wrote:
+1.
Thanks!
Just for the record, what particular platform (compiler/OS) and
configuration did you test the tarball on?
Martin
Martin Sebor wrote:
I just created the next stdcxx 4.2.0 release candidate tag,
stdcxx-4.2.0-rc-7, that incorporates changes addressing issues
+1.
Martin Sebor wrote:
I just created the next stdcxx 4.2.0 release candidate tag,
stdcxx-4.2.0-rc-7, that incorporates changes addressing issues
pointed out in the original vote thread.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stdcxx/tags/4.2.0-rc-7/
The tarball containing the release candid
I just created the next stdcxx 4.2.0 release candidate tag,
stdcxx-4.2.0-rc-7, that incorporates changes addressing issues
pointed out in the original vote thread.
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stdcxx/tags/4.2.0-rc-7/
The tarball containing the release candidate sources can be
downloa
12 matches
Mail list logo