20021214 snapshot seems to work ok, my testcase below does not fail any
more. Thanks!
Pavel
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:37:43AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:27:44AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:48:28PM +010
At 09:46 2002-12-15, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 01:36:29PM +0100, Arno Waschk wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:11:28 -0500, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>Absent any further details, this will be a potential problem in 1.3.18.
>
>If would be more than happy t
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 01:36:29PM +0100, Arno Waschk wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:11:28 -0500, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Absent any further details, this will be a potential problem in 1.3.18.
>
>If would be more than happy to provide further details, but it seems to
>be di
On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 21:11:28 -0500, Christopher Faylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 02:47:54AM +0100, Arno Waschk wrote:
2. Configure never complete "finding the maximum length of command-line arguments"
test (found in many configures, e. g. gcc-CVS) which used to be lengt
On Sun, Dec 15, 2002 at 02:47:54AM +0100, Arno Waschk wrote:
>2. Configure never complete "finding the maximum length of command-line
>arguments" test (found in many configures, e. g. gcc-CVS) which used to be
>lengthy but working on 1.3.17.
Works fine here.
Absent any further details, this wil
Since I am testing 021214 snapshot on my WinME installation, I wanted to
report two things:
1. Huge speed improvement here as well! Configure scripts seem to run
several times faster.
2. Configure never complete "finding the maximum length of command-line
arguments" test (found in many configu
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 09:53:45PM +0100, thomas wrote:
>
>I've piped several GB for testing purposes (with cat | dd), and input
>and output are always the same, so I've yet to encounter that *possible*
>data loss.
>And nice'd up pipes finally behave like they are supposed to: they are a
>bit faste
I've piped several GB for testing purposes (with cat | dd), and input
and output are always the same, so I've yet to encounter that *possible*
data loss.
And nice'd up pipes finally behave like they are supposed to: they are a
bit faster than their not nice'd up brothers, and not terribly slower
l
W98/SE, just a timing comparison.
As before: this snapshot is knocking spots off the current cygwin1.dll, at
least in respect of this one benchtest: take a 80MB file 0.uue and
time cat 0.uue | nice --1 dd of=/dev/null # current
1m12s
time cat 0.uue | nice --1 dd of=/dev/null # snapshot
Christopher Faylor writes:
>
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:37:43AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:27:44AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:48:28PM +0100, Pavel Holejsovsky wrote:
> >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Christopher Faylor wro
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:37:43AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:27:44AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:48:28PM +0100, Pavel Holejsovsky wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 07:32:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2002 at 12:27:44AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 03:48:28PM +0100, Pavel Holejsovsky wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 07:32:16AM -0500, Norman Vine wrote:
>Any 'tips' as to how to best debug th
12 matches
Mail list logo
