That is consistent with misunderstanding what is in Make.out.log.txt
and Make.error.log.txt.
In that make errors would appear in the same file as GCJ errors how do
you imagine that confusing the two would make any difference? I would
either have no error or both if GCJ had given an error. Grante
On Mar 30, 2007, at 2:10 PM, Null Heart wrote:
... No file failed.
You've not read the output correctly. The file named by make failed,
that file named is gnu/javax/swing/text/html/parser/HTML_401F.lo.
GCJ did not give an error.
That then is a bug is gcj, a failed compile should produce
On 3/30/07, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Null Heart wrote:
> I was just poking around with the latest snapshot for fun
Two thoughts come to mind. First, qualify your system with a known
to build, known to be good compiler. Build it 20 times, if it never
f
On Mar 30, 2007, at 12:32 PM, Null Heart wrote:
I was just poking around with the latest snapshot for fun
Two thoughts come to mind. First, qualify your system with a known
to build, known to be good compiler. Build it 20 times, if it never
fails to build, you probably have a good system.
