Steve Fink wrote:
> To expand on that: the currently commented-out dependency on
> Configure.pl in the makefile is wrong. It says the $(STICKY_FILES)
> depend only on the Configure.pl script itself, which is woefully
> incomplete:
There are a lot more dependencies, that are uncovered:
classe
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:13:07AM -0400, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> > > > rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl genera
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it's not a reset thing. I should have documented it better, though i
> thought the wod "initial" would tell it ;-)
Well I was thinking of it as initial allocation versus reallocation.
> The intlist structur
Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>#17549, 17569 intlist bugfix, speedup, test
> Applied.
Thanks again for all the checkins.
> One slight query I had was the meaning of the extra parameter added
> to intlist_new() by
On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tanton Gibbs wrote:
> What is annoying is that on my cygwin system, everytime I type make it
> rebuilds everything starting from Configure. It doesn't matter if I have
> touched anything or not. In other words
> perl Configure.pl && make
>
> will run Configure.pl twice.
Y
ginal Message -
From: "Andy Dougherty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Status of my patches ...
> On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > An
On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> > > rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl generated files is out
> > > of date clashes with the recently introduced edit to
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> > rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl generated files is out
> > of date clashes with the rec
On 26 Sep 2002, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > > #17517 build system, permanent Configure runs - annoying at least
> The problem here is that the rule in the Makefile that causes it to
> rerun Configure.pl if any of the Configure.pl generated files is out
> of date clashes with the recently introduced e
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #17549, 17569 intlist bugfix, speedup, test
Applied.
One slight query I had was the meaning of the extra parameter added
to intlist_new() by this patch. I assume the idea is that you can call
it with a value of 0
Tom Hughes wrote:
> In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>#17353/17323 test for Parrot_sprintf
> Applied.
Thank you.
> ... The outstanding question here is anyop.h
> and anyop.c in languages/imcc as they are not built, and seem to have
> b
Steve Fink wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:44:11PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
>
>> or who applies what when and why or not? This questions arises
>>sometimes, so I'll ask.
>>If people don't have the time to look at it, it's ok. But then, it would
>>be fine, if I could checkin at le
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #17353/17323 test for Parrot_sprintf
Applied.
I've also updated MANIFEST and the .cvsignore files to try and match
something approaching reality. The outstanding question here is anyop.h
and anyop.c in languages/
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 11:44:11PM +0200, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> or who applies what when and why or not? This questions arises
> sometimes, so I'll ask.
>
> ...
>
> If people don't have the time to look at it, it's ok. But then, it would
> be fine, if I could checkin at least the imcc
In message <20020925234547$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tanton Gibbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > #17517 build system, permanent Configure runs - annoying at least
>
> I wish someone would commit this one as this does fix a very annoying
> problem, especially on cygwin.
Applied.
The problem he
Tom Hughes wrote:
>>#17578
> Applied.
First of all, thank you for comitting these. I hate 3-way rediff's ;-)
>>#17193 necessary for imcc to write out PBC
> Applied. Like you I don't like it much but there aren't any other
> obviously better ways.
Yes, seems so.
> I missed that when it
> #17517 build system, permanent Configure runs - annoying at least
I wish someone would commit this one as this does fix a very annoying
problem, especially on cygwin.
Tanton
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> #17578 imcc including all fixes sent to the list except todays fix
>by Andy.
> - actually the 3rd fix summary IIRC I sent in (s. there for a list of
>patches, which are obsolete)
> - CRUCIAL for non i386
18 matches
Mail list logo
