Re: regtests for previous stables failing

2017-10-28 Thread Thomas Morley
2017-10-28 19:06 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> 2017-10-28 18:27 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >>> Thomas Morley writes: >>> 2017-10-27 23:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > > It's a bit tricky. Maybe we should cherry-pick the necessary > compatibility patches to

Re: regtests for previous stables failing

2017-10-28 Thread David Kastrup
Thomas Morley writes: > 2017-10-28 18:27 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> Thomas Morley writes: >> >>> 2017-10-27 23:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : It's a bit tricky. Maybe we should cherry-pick the necessary compatibility patches to the stable branches' tips? If you want to bise

Re: regtests for previous stables failing

2017-10-28 Thread Thomas Morley
2017-10-28 18:27 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> 2017-10-27 23:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >>> >>> It's a bit tricky. Maybe we should cherry-pick the necessary >>> compatibility patches to the stable branches' tips? If you want to >>> bisect, you'd need to skim them in as

Re: regtests for previous stables failing

2017-10-28 Thread David Kastrup
Thomas Morley writes: > 2017-10-27 23:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : >> >> It's a bit tricky. Maybe we should cherry-pick the necessary >> compatibility patches to the stable branches' tips? If you want to >> bisect, you'd need to skim them in as well, I guess. > > The compability patch is likely

Re: regtests for previous stables failing

2017-10-28 Thread Thomas Morley
2017-10-27 23:13 GMT+02:00 David Kastrup : > Thomas Morley writes: > >> But in the light of David's last mail I revived my old LilyDev3 which has: >> $ make --version && gcc --version >> GNU Make 3.81 >> Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> This is free software; see the source fo