* Eric Blake wrote on Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:52:22AM CET:
> > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:08:07PM CET:
> >> I can confirm the issue, but my bisect ended at
> >> 5e763da323f3927159b6c151f186569a9929ddbe instead.
>
> Thankfully, 'git describe 5e763da' in m4.git states:
>
> v
On 02/23/2011 02:33 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:08:07PM CET:
>> I can confirm the issue, but my bisect ended at
>> 5e763da323f3927159b6c151f186569a9929ddbe instead.
Thankfully, 'git describe 5e763da' in m4.git states:
v1.4.15-3-g5e763da
That is
FYI,
Here's a much-reduced test case for the short-needle case:
const char *needle = ".d.";
const char *haystack = "..d.";
const char* p = strstr (haystack, needle);
ASSERT (p && p - haystack == 1);
Interestingly, it doesn't trigger a failure in glibc's
slightly different impleme
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>
>>> [ this is http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.bugs/7834
>>> from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01480.html
>>> adding bug-gnulib; followups can elide bug-autoconf ]
>>>
>>> * Ralf Wildenh
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> [ this is http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.bugs/7834
>> from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01480.html
>> adding bug-gnulib; followups can elide bug-autoconf ]
>>
>> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> [ this is http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.bugs/7834
> from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01480.html
> adding bug-gnulib; followups can elide bug-autoconf ]
>
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:24:35AM CET:
>> IOW, i
[ this is http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.autoconf.bugs/7834
from http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01480.html
adding bug-gnulib; followups can elide bug-autoconf ]
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 07:24:35AM CET:
> IOW, it looks like the replacement code
* Mike Stump wrote on Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:06:07AM CET:
> On Feb 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > Are you on a machine with SSE4.2 instructions?
>
> Core 2 Duo. darwin10 (aka SnowLeopard). No glibc.
Here no SSE4.2 either. In an up to date build tree of the commit that
exposes the
On Feb 23, 2011, at 1:37 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Are you on a machine with SSE4.2 instructions?
Core 2 Duo. darwin10 (aka SnowLeopard). No glibc.
On 02/23/2011 02:33 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:08:07PM CET:
>> I can confirm the issue, but my bisect ended at
>> 5e763da323f3927159b6c151f186569a9929ddbe instead.
>
>> I'm starting bisect over the gnulib update in above commit now,
>> which ran
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 09:08:07PM CET:
> I can confirm the issue, but my bisect ended at
> 5e763da323f3927159b6c151f186569a9929ddbe instead.
> I'm starting bisect over the gnulib update in above commit now,
> which ranges from c0ebdfe226c38c72db7c1944113fd19ff534e362 to
>
Hello,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 04:50:32AM CET:
> Unless I did it wrong (entirely possible) -
> 76d1c49b8056aaf3f1046ba19c6dea6eb6aecb78 is the first bad commit -
I can confirm the issue, but my bisect ended at
5e763da323f3927159b6c151f186569a9929ddbe instead.
(You need to u
On 02/22/2011 04:04 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
[adding bug-m4]
On 02/22/2011 01:38 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
Hmm, can you point to a URL of the web archive of that thread, to see if
I can glean anything from that discussion?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-pa
On Feb 22, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> If the problem is reliably caused by the version of m4, then can you do
> a git bisect on m4 sources to pinpoint a particular m4 revision where
> the problem first appears?
It is, but no, I'm kinda tied up with work right now, so I can't commit to
[adding bug-m4]
On 02/22/2011 01:38 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Hmm, can you point to a URL of the web archive of that thread, to see if
>> I can glean anything from that discussion?
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01393.html
Accord
On Feb 22, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> Hmm, can you point to a URL of the web archive of that thread, to see if
> I can glean anything from that discussion?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-02/msg01393.html
On 02/22/2011 11:43 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Oh, you could have mentioned that you were trying to run autoconf on gcc
>> to begin with! Indeed, regenerating configure files for gcc requires
>> some specific steps; but those steps are better documented by asking on
>> the gcc lists rather than here
On Feb 22, 2011, at 6:13 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 02/22/2011 03:49 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
>> I'm trying to run autoconf on darwin, and it requires autoconf-2.64.
>
> Have you tried with autoconf 2.68?
No... [ pause ] I ripped out the require lines and tried with 2.68, same issue.
> If you want
On 02/22/2011 03:49 AM, Mike Stump wrote:
> I'm trying to run autoconf on darwin, and it requires autoconf-2.64.
Have you tried with autoconf 2.68?
> When I run it I wind up with extra lines in the resulting configure file:
>
> Index: configure
>
19 matches
Mail list logo
