On 21 February 2012 22:41, Trass3r wrote:
>> I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal test
>> cases?
>
>
> Think it's done.
> 6 new issues opened.
boo hoo. :)
--
Iain Buclaw
*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal test
cases?
Think it's done.
6 new issues opened.
DustMite gogogo.
Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)
Hmm indeed, lots of crashes when building the unittests.
Reducing std.container ICE now.
Am Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:19:01 +0100
schrieb Trass3r :
> >> One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated
> >> ones. Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
> >> http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9
> >
> > I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal
> > test cases?
>
>
One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones.
Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9
I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal test
cases?
DustMite gogogo.
On 21 February 2012 12:03, Johannes Pfau wrote:
> Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler
> configured with --enable-checking or should I file bug reports?
>
> One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones.
> Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
> http:
Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler
configured with --enable-checking or should I file bug reports?
One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones.
Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9
More important to me right now thou
