Of course! I did not mean any complaint, I was simply saying that I tested a release version since I suspected it would be stable and not likely to be broken from a recent regression like trunk might be.
I'll be sure to test when it comes around :). Thanks for all your hard work! On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Thomas Preud'homme <robo...@celest.fr>wrote: > Le mercredi 22 janvier 2014, 04:18:53 Austin English a écrit : > > With commit 32a4962593d6a2006cdd725480124717e7f5377d, it builds and make > > test runs. There is an error: > > gcc -o tcctest.gcc tcctest.c -I.. -I.. -w -Wall -g -O2 > > -fno-strict-aliasing -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-sign-compare > -Wno-unused-result > > -DTCC_TARGET_I386 -DTCC_TARGET_PE -std=gnu99 -O0 -fno-omit-frame-pointer > > tcctest.c:6:15: error: operator '>=' has no left operand > > #if GCC_MAJOR >= 3 > > ^ > > tcctest.c: In function 'builtin_test': > > tcctest.c:2467:15: error: operator '>=' has no left operand > > return (to); > > ^ > > make[1]: *** [test.ref] Error 1 > > > > make -k otherwise looks good, thanks. > > > > P.S. I had actually originally tested against 0.9.26, not HEAD. I > assumed a > > release had a better chance of reliably passing 'make test'. Maybe a goal > > for 0.9.27? ;) > > I definitely hope that 0.9.27 will work better and more tests will pass. > We all > worked hard for this. I myself focused on ARM as it's what I know best but > others have worked on it as well. However we need testers to try all > possible > configurations so when we'll do the call for testing you are more than > welcome > to report tests that fail. > > Best regards, > > Thomas > -- -Austin
_______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list Tinycc-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
