On 1/12/2011 1:35 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Wednesday 12 January 2011 01:28:07 Brad Roberts wrote: >> The new module will need to be added to the two .mak files before it'll be >> properly built and tested. Pick a previously existing module and use it as >> a pattern to follow. The two files are very different. > > ??? It was already in the mak files from the previous version. Or is there > somewhere in there that it wasn't? It does build as part of the build if I > run > make -f posix.mak.
Sorry, thought it was brand new, meaning it wasn't there yet. >> I expect fallout from a new file and a bunch of new code.. it's pretty much >> inevitable. The core.time module exposed 4 new bugs in the 64 bit code >> gen, but Walter and I got 'em isolated and fixed in fairly short order. >> >> Thanks for the hard work. > > Well, breaking 64-bit stuff is a bit different from having tests fail on > Windows > due to platform differences. Last time I ran the tests with wine though, they > passed. Of course, the core.time tests did too, and they ended up failing on > an > actual Windows box, so go figure. > > It's a lot of code though, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if it the 64-bit > stuff didn't handle it very well. The more code you're dealing with, the more > likely you are to find a bug. I certainly found plenty of them while > implementing > it - just not in the 64-bit compiler, because I haven't done anything with > that. We'll find out. _______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
