Mark Taylor wrote:
Hi Everyone,
I haven't been keeping up with things for the last week, because
my wife and I just had our first baby :-) (baby's requisite website:
www.wildpuppy.com/baby)
Hey! Congrats, Mark! Give my regards to the new mother too. How are they
doing? I only wish I
C can't cast from type A to type B. There is only the possibility to
cast every shit to type B. And this is dangerous.
So you write a
int ifreq;
double dfreq;
ifreq = (int) ( dfreq );
and now dfreq changes the type to 'struct bla*'.
C converts this without batting an
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000, Frank Klemm wrote:
:: :: I run gcc 2.95.(3) and SAS/C (the latter is usually much more helpful on
:: :: warnings, and still much more forgiving on "errors")...
:: Can you add g++ for testing?
:: Or also some other C++ compiler?
G++ 2.95.2 has the
:: Hi Everyone,
::
:: I haven't been keeping up with things for the last week, because
:: my wife and I just had our first baby :-) (baby's requisite website:
:: www.wildpuppy.com/baby)
::
:: Anyway, now LAME CVS fails all my test cases. This is normal since
:: small changes in just
From: Frank Klemm [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Good C Code should be compilable with (nearly) all C(89/95/99)
Agreed. (Although there is some perfectly good C89/95 code that is broken by
changes in C99 - see endless arguments in news:comp.std.c)
and C++ compilers.
Good C code compilable as
::
:: Currently my aim is, that the program is compilable with:
:: gcc 2.95.2
:: g++ 2.95.2
::
:: I run gcc 2.95.(3) and SAS/C (the latter is usually much more helpful on
:: warnings, and still much more forgiving on "errors")...
::
Can you add g++ for testing?
Or also some other
I hope you guys correct all the errors. Please make sure that no new bugs show up
on the next beta release! If it's very much "broken" I think it'll be best to
start again with a previous alpha, one before someone broke it. Thank you all who
are working hard on making LAME such a great encoder!
:: I run gcc 2.95.(3) and SAS/C (the latter is usually much more helpful on
:: warnings, and still much more forgiving on "errors")...
Can you add g++ for testing?
Or also some other C++ compiler?
Or use gcc at monday/wednesday and friday and g++ at the rest?
I have no incentive to use C++ at
I hope you guys correct all the errors. Please make sure that no new bugs
show up on the next beta release! If it's very much "broken" I think it'll be
best to start again with a previous alpha, one before someone broke it. Thank
you all who are working hard on making LAME such a great encoder!
Are you sure about that? The Layer2 decoding code doesn't compile for
me, and when I try to decode it says something about bug!!?? or
something like that, every file I try to decode does it (mp3, I disabled
layer1 and layer2 for now just so it would compile).
Josh
"Sigbjørn Skjæret"
Hi Everyone,
I haven't been keeping up with things for the last week, because
my wife and I just had our first baby :-) (baby's requisite website:
www.wildpuppy.com/baby)
Anyway, now LAME CVS fails all my test cases. This is normal since
small changes in just the order of operations will show
Are you sure about that? The Layer2 decoding code doesn't compile for
me, and when I try to decode it says something about bug!!?? or
something like that, every file I try to decode does it (mp3, I disabled
layer1 and layer2 for now just so it would compile).
Ah, yes, I hadn't come that
:: :: I run gcc 2.95.(3) and SAS/C (the latter is usually much more helpful on
:: :: warnings, and still much more forgiving on "errors")...
:: Can you add g++ for testing?
:: Or also some other C++ compiler?
:: Or use gcc at monday/wednesday and friday and g++ at the rest?
::
:: I have
:: Please check that your code compiles and works ok before checking it in to
:: the CVS ...
::
That doesn't help fully to solve the problem. Compiler and runtime libs are
different. So the check can only be done for one (or two) compilers.
Another problem are interferencing code changes in
:: Please check that your code compiles and works ok before checking it in
:: to the CVS ...
::
That doesn't help fully to solve the problem. Compiler and runtime libs are
different. So the check can only be done for one (or two) compilers.
Still, it's not fun when certain files fail to
15 matches
Mail list logo
