On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 02:16:53PM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks scrawled:
> Sorry I misunderstood the issue. I thought it could be reproduced under
> ppc Linux. I did not understand it was a fluke event.
>
> Why would this "fluke" be holding up X11R6 development at all if it could
> not be "repro
Hi,
Sorry I misunderstood the issue. I thought it could be reproduced under
ppc Linux. I did not understand it was a fluke event.
Why would this "fluke" be holding up X11R6 development at all if it could
not be "reproduced" even by the original submitter?
Sorry, just trying to help.
Kevin
On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 01:55:34PM -0500, Kevin B. Hendricks wrote:
Hi,
> Perhaps the code has someplaces where char is explictly assumed to be
> signed.
Very unlikely, patch is highly portable and I've never heard of any such
problems with it.
> And then re-run thetest case and see if now pa
Hi,
Not sure if this is relevant or not. The default under PPC Linux gcc is to
have all char types be unsigned by default whereas on x86 Linux char types
default to be signed (I believe). (I belive PPC Linux is unique iin this
default among Linux platforms)
Perhaps the code has someplaces wh
On Mon, 2003-02-03 at 19:29, Michael Fedrowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:35:56PM +0100, Michael Fedrowitz wrote:
>
> [CCing debian-powerpc, see http://bugs.debian.org/175921 for context.
> Anyone here ever seen any ppc specific breakage in GNU patch?]
>
> Hi,
>
> > Unless this can be
On Thu, Jan 09, 2003 at 07:35:56PM +0100, Michael Fedrowitz wrote:
[CCing debian-powerpc, see http://bugs.debian.org/175921 for context.
Anyone here ever seen any ppc specific breakage in GNU patch?]
Hi,
> Unless this can be reproduced somehow there's probably not a lot anyone
> can do about it
6 matches
Mail list logo