Roman Yakovenko wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:15 AM, Brad King <[email protected]> wrote: >> Oops, you're right, sorry. Anyway, the output doesn't actually change. >> It just suppresses the error that the OP saw. > > There are some changes in the output. May be not in the format, but in > the content. For example classes have different members set. > > P.S. I run my tests against new gccxml and few of them failed. I will > investigate the failures tomorrow (pretty sure they are my fault).
Can you please send me a small example of what has changed? I want to make sure I didn't break the original fix with this. Thanks, -Brad _______________________________________________ gccxml mailing list [email protected] http://www.gccxml.org/mailman/listinfo/gccxml
