Re: New auxiliary archive script

Darn, we need another name: 'archive' is likely too common when automake is going to put all files with that name in the distribution of each package using Automake. No need to send another patch, but any other good suggestions that fit in with the existing scripts? I don't find arlib so bad, exc

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > FWIW, your patch worked 10+ times in a row for me, and no fails. > > I personally don't care which patch eventually "makes it"... It seems it has been your one ;-). No big deal for me, either, and thanks for the testing. Regards,

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

Hi Stefano, Den 2010-08-06 20:52 skrev Stefano Lattarini: At Friday 06 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Stefano, sorry for not taking your patch; I saw Peter's earlier and had good success testing it on MinGW; also, I think it is easier to understand than yours. Hope you don't mind. Obviou

push + merge

Pushed the following change as abvious to maint, and merged maint into branch-1.11 and into master. Regards, Stefano -*-*- From 926b43d4a4314a4b9eeb4241a36e35afc4fe581b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stefano Lattarini Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 21:36:33 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Typofix in ChangeLog

Re: [PATCH] Work around a nasty bug of Solaris make

Pushed to maint. Regards, Stefano

Re: [PATCH] Fixlets and minor improvements for HACKING.

Pushed. Regards, Stefano

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

At Friday 06 August 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 04:11:20PM CEST: > > Please apply this on top of maint: > Thanks, done. You can make us even happier if you submit patches > with git format-patch $ref > > where $ref is the starting point you're basing

Re: [PATCH] Work around a nasty bug of Solaris make

* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:21:05AM CEST: > At Friday 06 August 2010, Eric Blake wrote: > > You'd need something like: > > done | { tr '\012\015' ' '; echo; } | sed 's/ *$$//' > A little ugly... I prefer to be more explicit and clear, FWIW, I find the above clear and t

Re: [PATCH] Fixlets and minor improvements for HACKING.

Hi Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 11:50:46AM CEST: > Subject: [PATCH] Fixlets and minor improvements for HACKING. > > * HACKING: Add some missing fullstops in sentences. Remove > some extra empty lines, for consistency. > (Test suite): Add pointer to `tests/README'. >

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 04:11:20PM CEST: > Please apply this on top of maint: Thanks, done. You can make us even happier if you submit patches with git format-patch $ref where $ref is the starting point you're basing on. I don't care whether you attach the files or send th

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

Hi Peter. It seems our patches crossed... At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > As seen above, kill seems to always work once it starts to work, > so I tried to insert a sleep before the first kill. That "fixes" > it. I have 10+ consecutive successes, no fails. > > Please apply this on

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

Den 2010-08-06 15:15 skrev Stefano Lattarini: At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: Hi Stefano, Den 2010-08-06 13:54 skrev Stefano Lattarini: At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: [CUT] I was not running in parallel and I was running off of the msvc branch (basically maint I th

[PATCH] Remove a race condition from test cond5.test (was: cond5.test spurious failure)

Peter, thanks for your analysis. So it seems a bug in the kill builtin of the MSYS shell after all, just like you suggested. At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > [CUT] > > tmp3.test "always" works, but takes different branches depending > on if kill worked or not. > > kill failure: >

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

Den 2010-08-06 15:15 skrev Stefano Lattarini: To help us pinpoint the problem, could you please try to run the attached "fake" test scripts multiple times, and post the outputs? Please forgive me the for the ugliness of such scripts, but I'm just taking wild guesses here. For tmp.test, I swappe

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

Den 2010-08-06 15:56 skrev Peter Rosin: kill success: === Running test ./tmp.test ++ pwd /home/peda/automake/git/automake/tests/tmp.dir + set -e + cat + cat + sh -c 'echo %aclocal pid: $$; sleep 2' %aclocal pid: 12228 + pid=13504 + sh -c 'echo %automake pid: $$; sleep 4; echo variable OPT_SRC re

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > Hi Stefano, > > Den 2010-08-06 13:54 skrev Stefano Lattarini: > > At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > >> [CUT] > I was not running in parallel and I was running off of the msvc > branch (basically maint I think) plus the commit in the previ

Re: Support new platform "Andestech" Platform

On 08/06/2010 06:53 AM, Thomas YS Liu wrote: > *1. Modify config.sub* > *1.1 Modify config.sub file* for individual package > > This step helps the autoconf tool > recognizing the Andes > architecture and machine type. You can follow the diff > file below to

Support new platform "Andestech" Platform

Hi All Patches are us following -- 轉寄的郵件 -- 寄件者： 日期： 2009年7月1日下午3:59 主旨： Andes application porting guide *Hi, all:* * * Share you with the experiences in open source applications porting for Andes platform. * * ** Environment settings for Andes Toolchain* # Andes toolc

Re: New auxiliary archive script

Den 2010-08-06 13:43 skrev Peter Rosin: commit 3d3229ff86bd8194974bcf56948f5c6b0b54d99a Author: Peter Rosin Date: Fri Aug 6 13:35:26 2010 +0200 Add new auxiliary 'archive' script, wrapping Microsoft lib. * lib/archive: New auxiliary script. * lib/Makefile.am: Add above. * m4/archive.m4: New ma

Re: cond5.test spurious failure

Hi Stefano, Den 2010-08-06 13:54 skrev Stefano Lattarini: At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: [CUT] I did get a spurious failure in cond5.test, but it went away when I ran it separately. Did you by chance run many tests in parallel? If yes, you might have hit a known issue: "The t

cond5.test spurious failure (was: New auxiliary archive script)

Hello Peter. At Friday 06 August 2010, Peter Rosin wrote: > [CUT] > I did get a spurious failure in cond5.test, but it went away when > I ran it separately. > Did you by chance run many tests in parallel? If yes, you might have hit a known issue: "The test cond5.test can fail spuriously due to t

Re: New auxiliary archive script

Hi Ralf, Den 2010-08-06 07:22 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 12:00:53AM CEST: Den 2010-08-01 20:06 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: For actual applicability, it is sufficient if you provide a working script, post testsuite results with it in place (you might want to

[PATCH] Fixlets and minor improvements for HACKING. (was: Document current policy for development with git.)

At Thursday 29 July 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > +* There may be a number of longer-lived feature branches for > > > new developments. + They should be based off of a common > > > ancestor of all active branches to + which the feature should > > > be merged later. The next branch may se