Re: [PATCH] Improve and extend test cond5.test.

At Thursday 24 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:32:02PM CEST: > > At Thursday 24 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > Do you have an old system? > > > > Well, it's not new :-) > > > > $ cat /proc/cpuinfo > > model name : AMD Athlon(tm

Re: [PATCH] Improve and extend test cond5.test.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 10:32:02PM CEST: > At Thursday 24 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Do you have an old system? > Well, it's not new :-) > > $ cat /proc/cpuinfo > model name : AMD Athlon(tm) XP 1800+ > $ free | awk '(NR == 2) { print $2 }' > 774904 Heh

Re: [PATCH] Improve and extend test cond5.test.

At Thursday 24 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM CEST: > > May I ping this? If you think the patch is OK, I'd like to see > > it applied, since at present I'm continuing to experience > > annoying spurious failures in cond5.test. > >

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bugfix w.r.t. $(AM_LFLAGS)/$(LFLAGS) and $(AM_YFLAGS)/$(YFLAGS) precedence.

At Thursday 24 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I didn't mean to push the branch, unless it becomes a longer-lived > one which you might want to base work on. Ah, OK. I misunderstood, and though that you intended to publish the branch. I'm perfectly fine with not having it in the main reposit

Re: [PATCH] Improve and extend test cond5.test.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:04:07PM CEST: > May I ping this? If you think the patch is OK, I'd like to see it > applied, since at present I'm continuing to experience annoying > spurious failures in cond5.test. Thanks for the reminder. Yes, the patch looks good for mai

Re: [PATCH 0/2] Bugfix w.r.t. $(AM_LFLAGS)/$(LFLAGS) and $(AM_YFLAGS)/$(YFLAGS) precedence.

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 03:28:59PM CEST: > At Monday 21 June 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I'm putting them in a new branch off of maint, and adding the > > following patch below to fix a couple of nits in them. > > I'm merging the branch to master for now, might me

Re: [PATCH] Fix bugs in test script silent5.test.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:01:26PM CEST: > This tiny patch fix a nasty bug in 'silent5.test' (due to the use of > grep instead of egrep) that could have lead to false negatives. > > The bug was introduced in one of my previous patches ("Improved test > sile