D.gnu - Should make unittest work with --enable-checking?
- Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> Feb 21 2012
- Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> Feb 21 2012
- Trass3r <un known.com> Feb 21 2012
- Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> Feb 21 2012
- Trass3r <un known.com> Feb 21 2012
- Trass3r <un known.com> Feb 21 2012
- Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> Feb 21 2012
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 though: It seems Makefile.am is missing the testgc target?
Feb 21 2012
On 21 February 2012 12:03, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> 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://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9 More important to me right now though: It seems Makefile.am is missing the testgc target?
I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases? -- Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Feb 21 2012
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.
Feb 21 2012
Am Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:19:01 +0100 schrieb Trass3r <un known.com>: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.
Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)
Feb 21 2012
DustMite gogogo.
Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)
Hmm indeed, lots of crashes when building the unittests. Reducing std.container ICE now.
Feb 21 2012
I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?
Think it's done. 6 new issues opened.
Feb 21 2012
On 21 February 2012 22:41, Trass3r <un known.com> wrote:I'll have to check tonight. =A0Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?
Think it's done. 6 new issues opened.
boo hoo. :) --=20 Iain Buclaw *(p < e ? p++ : p) =3D (c & 0x0f) + '0';
Feb 21 2012









Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> 