On 15 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Lars does this guideline also apply to trivial functions like :
> |
> | do_something() {
> | do_it_now();
> | done = 1;
> | }
>
> In principle yes, but often those kind of
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars does this guideline also apply to trivial functions like :
|
| do_something() {
| do_it_now();
| done = 1;
| }
In principle yes, but often those kind of methods are so trivial that
they are "obviouly correct".
On 11 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On 10-Oct-2000 Baruch Even wrote:
> | >
> | > OK, I'll try that later.
> | > In the InsetGraphics patch I also put the de-inline of these functions it
> | > might be desirable to remove them from the pa
On 11-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Ok, your fix is just very wrong. I have put in what I belive to be the
> correct fix instead.
I'll try it out and let you know!
Jürgen
P.S.: Well I wouldn't spend to much time on this as I decided to NOT
upgrade to RedHat 7.0 but wait til
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> What flags are used for 2.96 at present? (I really hate Redhat
| Lars> for releasing an 2.96 which is not endoresed by the gcc team.)
|
| See the report at
| http://www
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> What flags are used for 2.96 at present? (I really hate Redhat
Lars> for releasing an 2.96 which is not endoresed by the gcc team.)
See the report at
http://www.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18166
Basically, lyx assum
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> As a guideline we should inline as _few_ functions/methods as
| Lars> possible. _Unless_ we can show by profiling that it will have a
| Lars> large effect and that the cur
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> As a guideline we should inline as _few_ functions/methods as
Lars> possible. _Unless_ we can show by profiling that it will have a
Lars> large effect and that the current code is too slow because of
Lars> out-of-line code.
BT
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 09-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
| >
| > You are allowed to post some compiler messages...
| >
| > Seems to me to be a compiler bug.
| > And we don't want ANY defined like that...
|
| I get NO compiler errors and get this on linking:
|
| de
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 10-Oct-2000 Baruch Even wrote:
| >
| > OK, I'll try that later.
| > In the InsetGraphics patch I also put the de-inline of these functions it
| > might be desirable to remove them from the patch.
| >
| > Jurgen: Let me know if you'll do it or if I
On 10-Oct-2000 Baruch Even wrote:
>
> OK, I'll try that later.
> In the InsetGraphics patch I also put the de-inline of these functions it
> might be desirable to remove them from the patch.
>
> Jurgen: Let me know if you'll do it or if I need to provide a new patch.
>
I guess we can let them
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Lior Silberman wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
> >
> > > I've tried with 2.95.2 (unpatched) on my machine and had troubles too. I'm
> > > also having troubles with egcs 1.1.2 for what it matters (It cant find
> > > GroupCache::find on linking, I'm forced to
On 09-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> You are allowed to post some compiler messages...
>
> Seems to me to be a compiler bug.
> And we don't want ANY defined like that...
I get NO compiler errors and get this on linking:
debug.o: In function `Debug::showLevel(ostream &, Debug::type)':
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> > I've tried with 2.95.2 (unpatched) on my machine and had troubles too. I'm
> > also having troubles with egcs 1.1.2 for what it matters (It cant find
> > GroupCache::find on linking, I'm forced to make the funct
On Tue, 10 Oct 2000, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> > On 9 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >
> > > > "Baruch" == Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Baruch> I wanted to know if users of GCC 2.95.2 (the base for the
> > > Baruch> Athlon
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
> On 9 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
>
> > > "Baruch" == Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Baruch> I wanted to know if users of GCC 2.95.2 (the base for the
> > Baruch> AthlonGCC) have any such troubles compiling LyX? I'm using th
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
> I've tried with 2.95.2 (unpatched) on my machine and had troubles too. I'm
> also having troubles with egcs 1.1.2 for what it matters (It cant find
> GroupCache::find on linking, I'm forced to make the function un-inlined).
>
Same problem for me, I need
On 9 Oct 2000, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > "Baruch" == Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Baruch> I wanted to know if users of GCC 2.95.2 (the base for the
> Baruch> AthlonGCC) have any such troubles compiling LyX? I'm using the
> Baruch> --enable-assertions --enable-warnings co
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, John Levon wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > While setting up my new computer I've upgraded the compiler from the
> > distributions egcs 1.1.2 to AthlonGCC 2.95.3, the AthlonGCC is a patch
> > over the PGCC 2.95.3 which is a patch against GCC
Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 09-Oct-2000 John Levon wrote:
| >
| > I got this as a result of the -fhonor-std flag - it means that the simple
| > string test fails with "string undeclared", so it thinks the actual
| > implementation is buggy. Remove -fhonor-std and it will go aw
On 09-Oct-2000 John Levon wrote:
>
> I got this as a result of the -fhonor-std flag - it means that the simple
> string test fails with "string undeclared", so it thinks the actual
> implementation is buggy. Remove -fhonor-std and it will go away (at least
> it did for me). Latest CVS I noticed
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Juergen Vigna wrote:
>
> On 09-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> >
> > I have _no_ problems with gcc 2.95.2
> >
>
> I'm actually compiling with gcc-2.96 (from a RedHat 7.0 installation).
> The only problem I had was the LString.h error message as I think some
> stl inc
> BTW: Could someone tell me what: RTFM means? (for translation)
;-)
Read The F...ing Manual
:-(
Insert your favourite F-word here!
A
On 09-Oct-2000 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
> I have _no_ problems with gcc 2.95.2
>
I'm actually compiling with gcc-2.96 (from a RedHat 7.0 installation).
The only problem I had was the LString.h error message as I think some
stl include-file includes before LString.h can be included and
it
On 9 Oct 2000, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | > I wanted to know if users of GCC 2.95.2 (the base for the AthlonGCC) have
> | > any such troubles compiling LyX? I'm using the --enable-assertions
> | > --enable-warnings configure options.
> | >
> |
> |
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I wanted to know if users of GCC 2.95.2 (the base for the AthlonGCC) have
| > any such troubles compiling LyX? I'm using the --enable-assertions
| > --enable-warnings configure options.
| >
|
| I have yet to be able to compile with 2.95.2 - internal co
On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Baruch Even wrote:
> Hi,
>
> While setting up my new computer I've upgraded the compiler from the
> distributions egcs 1.1.2 to AthlonGCC 2.95.3, the AthlonGCC is a patch
> over the PGCC 2.95.3 which is a patch against GCC 2.95.2. The PGCC is a
> pentium optimized version of
> "Baruch" == Baruch Even <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Baruch> I wanted to know if users of GCC 2.95.2 (the base for the
Baruch> AthlonGCC) have any such troubles compiling LyX? I'm using the
Baruch> --enable-assertions --enable-warnings configure options.
I've got trouble compiling with 2.95
Hi,
While setting up my new computer I've upgraded the compiler from the
distributions egcs 1.1.2 to AthlonGCC 2.95.3, the AthlonGCC is a patch
over the PGCC 2.95.3 which is a patch against GCC 2.95.2. The PGCC is a
pentium optimized version of GCC and AthlonGCC is an Athlon optimized
version.
I
29 matches
Mail list logo
