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
28 matches
Mail list logo
