(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #57)
> Chris, can you review it ? i see no reason to wait for 661974,
> and it would fix the build for exotic architectures.
Sure, will try to get it done tomorrow!
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is sub
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #44)
> Will that mean that !yarr-jit will become part of the 'regular testsuite',
> so that build breakage are detected on tbpl ?
Not build breakage, no, since we won't build with !YARR_JIT, but
correctness testing (since we can disable the JIT at runtime an
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #41)
> Apart checkSyntax, it should be okay. Chris, any idea what
> to do about that, and would it be so wrong to return true, given that it
> worksforme ?
Hey Landry, sorry for the delay on this. We have to do something about
checkSyntax. I need to create a
(In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #29)
> Yes, but for sparc, it's more subtle: ENABLE_ASSEMBLER needs to be set for
> the normal non YARR JIT. Man, what a mess.
This is what happens when you don't test non-standard configurations. I
had a patch that dropped off my radar in bug 6619
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #18)
> Another annoyance was the landing of bug #673188, which right now #errors
> out if ENABLE_YARR_JIT is unset (see RegExpObject.cpp, function
> checkSyntax()), pretty unfriendly. So far i've replaced it by a return true,
> but it's of course ugly.
It's
