On Thursday, 03 Nov 2005 12:03 +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I committed the patches with the #ifdef, since it does not hurt.
Thanks a lot! Going to save me some trouble when I'm going to package
up a new version of LyX.
-Markus
--
http://www.blastwave.org
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Perhaps even drop the #ifdef and have just the #undef
Lars> I am ok with this for now.
I committed the patches with the #ifdef, since it does not hurt.
JMarc
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I thought it was a problem with some older compilers...
Lars> What?
Lars> undeffing something that might not exist?
Yes. However, I cannot find a reference to that anymore.
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Lars> Perhaps even drop the #ifdef and have just the #undef
|
| I thought it was a problem with some older compilers...
What?
undeffing something that might not exist?
--
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> Perhaps even drop the #ifdef and have just the #undef
I thought it was a problem with some older compilers...
JMarc
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Lars> If we are to fix this the undef round is the correct one. We
| Lars> should not have to "obfuscate"
> "Jean-Marc" == Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> If we are to fix this the undef round is the correct one. We
Lars> should not have to "obfuscate" lyx code in anyway to accomodate
Lars> systems that uses ove
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Lars> If we are to fix this the undef round is the correct one. We
Lars> should not have to "obfuscate" lyx code in anyway to accomodate
Lars> systems that uses overly general macros.
OK, what about these patches for now? Or if you p
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
| > Would it be possible to consider this patch (or a modified version of
| > the proposed patch from 2003) for application to the mainline?
| >
| > Best regards,
| > -Markus
|
| > diff -ru
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
> Would it be possible to consider this patch (or a modified version of
> the proposed patch from 2003) for application to the mainline?
>
> Best regards,
> -Markus
> diff -ru lyx-1.3.6.orig/src/lyxlength.C lyx-1.3.6/src/lyxlength.C
>
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 04:57:45PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
> I this case I would do something like
>
> /**
> * Solaris x86 hack
> * (Solaris x86 defines SP and PC in /usr/include/ia32/sys/reg.h)
> */
The comment is fine, but:
> #if (defined(__i386) && defined(sun) && defined(__SVR4))
I t
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
|
| > It took a while to figure out what the reason was and I just discovered
| > that it is even a known issue and that a bug-fix has been proposed two
| > and a half years ago (http://bugzilla
On Wednesday, 26 Oct 2005 00:22 +0100, John Levon wrote:
> Rather, we should do the
>
> #ifdef SP
> #undef SP
> #endif
>
> approach mentioned in the bug. That way, when nobody uses Solaris 9 or
> earlier any more (it won't happen on S10), it's easy to remove the hack.
That is true. It won't aff
On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 03:45:28PM -0700, Markus Mayer wrote:
> It took a while to figure out what the reason was and I just discovered
> that it is even a known issue and that a bug-fix has been proposed two
> and a half years ago (http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=992).
I don't think your
14 matches
Mail list logo
