Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Bad timing. I was about to make a test release.
>> If anyone else has access to a Solaris 10 system (x86 or otherwise),
>> with Sun C, would you please try the latest snapshot?
>>
>> http://meyering.net/cu/
>
> FYI if you feel
Matthew Woehlke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Bad timing. I was about to make a test release.
>> If anyone else has access to a Solaris 10 system (x86 or otherwise),
>> with Sun C, would you please try the latest snapshot?
>> http://meyering.net/cu/
>
> FYI if you feel the
Jim Meyering wrote:
Bad timing. I was about to make a test release.
If anyone else has access to a Solaris 10 system (x86 or otherwise),
with Sun C, would you please try the latest snapshot?
http://meyering.net/cu/
FYI if you feel the need for more test results, I can do builds on both
SPA
On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 12:26:00AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:22:31AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
> >>
> >> Bad timing. I was about to make a test release.
> >> If anyone else has access to a Solaris 10 system (x86 or otherwise
Albert Chin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:22:31AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >
>> >> Why does your config.h define HAVE_PARTLY_WORKING_GETCWD
>> >> when using Sun C 5.8?
>> >
>> > So
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If anyone else has access to a Solaris 10 system (x86 or otherwise),
> with Sun C, would you please try the latest snapshot?
I can't reproduce the problem now, so I'm not sure what went wrong.
Sorry. Well, at any rate the patch has been reverted.
>> On
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Why does your config.h define HAVE_PARTLY_WORKING_GETCWD
>> when using Sun C 5.8?
>
> Sorry, I don't know offhand. I don't currently have access to the
> affected machine but will try to get to it soon. It is S
Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why does your config.h define HAVE_PARTLY_WORKING_GETCWD
> when using Sun C 5.8?
Sorry, I don't know offhand. I don't currently have access to the
affected machine but will try to get to it soon. It is Solaris 10
x86, patched to about a month ago. I b
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This will fail if the length of CWD is bigger than 4095 and some parts of
> it are unreadable.
Thanks for mentioning that. I backed out the change in gnulib. I'll
try to come up with a better way of fixing the problem on Solaris.
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> coreutils "make check" failed on Solaris 10 with Sun C 5.8 due to "df
> ." failing. I tracked it down to a getcwd issue exposed by recent
> changes to getcwd.c, and installed this patch to gnulib.
>
> After installing this patch (and the other fixes I sent
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> coreutils "make check" failed on Solaris 10 with Sun C 5.8 due to "df
> ." failing. I tracked it down to a getcwd issue exposed by recent
> changes to getcwd.c, and installed this patch to gnulib.
>
> After installing this patch (and the other fixes I sen
11 matches
Mail list logo
