I've fixed the sparc bug in SVN (revision 72).  The bug is only a problem if
you use DynamicMessage; otherwise you can stick with 2.0.2.

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Niclas Blomgren <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  Hi again!
>
> Ok I didn't know that. When I from cygwin execute "ls c:" it works fine.
> But if I try "touch c:\trashfile" then I get permission denied. Weird. I
> agree that I can ignore this problem.
>
> Ok I guess I will have to hope that the sparc failure doesn't cause me any
> trouble then.
>
> Thanks for your support.
>
> BR / N
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* Kenton Varda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* den 23 oktober 2008 22:31
>
> *To:* Niclas Blomgren
> *Cc:* protobuf@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: Make check reports error
>
> Cygwin allows you to specify paths like "C:\".  For example, try this
> command:
>   ls 'C:\'
>
> At least, for me, this lists the root of the C drive.  It looks like the
> test failed because you do not have permission to access C:\ on your
> machine.  Is this possible?  You can probably ignore this failure.
>
> The sparc failure is still mysterious to me.  Unfortunately I don't have a
> sparc machine on which I can debug it.  :(
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 1:22 AM, Niclas Blomgren <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>  Hi again,
>>
>> I took a quick look at this code in command_line_interface_unittest.cc
>>
>> TEST_F(CommandLineInterfaceTest, WindowsOutputPath) {
>>   // Test that the output path can be a Windows-style path.
>>
>>   NullCodeGenerator* generator = RegisterNullGenerator("--test_out");
>>
>>   CreateTempFile("foo.proto",
>>     "syntax = \"proto2\";\n");
>>
>>   Run("protocol_compiler --test_out=C:\\ "
>>       "--proto_path=$tmpdir foo.proto");
>>
>>   ExpectNoErrors();
>>   EXPECT_TRUE(generator->called_);
>>   EXPECT_EQ("", generator->parameter_);
>> }
>>
>> At a quick glance it seems like the code tries to access C:.
>> In cygwin however the path to C: is /cygdrive/c.
>>
>> BR / N
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Niclas Blomgren
>> *Sent:* den 23 oktober 2008 09:50
>> *To:* 'Kenton Varda'
>> *Cc:* protobuf@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* RE: Make check reports error
>>
>>   Hi!
>>
>> Solaris: Yes it was a sparc system. 64-bit.
>>
>> Cygwin: Ok here it is. I have also attached the entire "make check " in a
>> logfile.
>>
>> [ RUN      ] CommandLineInterfaceTest.WindowsOutputPath
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:329: Failure
>> Value of: return_code_
>>   Actual: 1
>> Expected: 0
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:330: Failure
>> Value of: error_text_
>>   Actual: "C:\/: Permission denied
>> "
>> Expected: ""
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:522: Failure
>> Value of: generator->called_
>>   Actual: false
>> Expected: true
>> [  FAILED  ] CommandLineInterfaceTest.WindowsOutputPath
>> [ RUN      ] CommandLineInterfaceTest.WindowsOutputPathAndParameter
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:329: Failure
>> Value of: return_code_
>>   Actual: 1
>> Expected: 0
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:330: Failure
>> Value of: error_text_
>>   Actual: "C:\/: Permission denied
>> "
>> Expected: ""
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:538: Failure
>> Value of: generator->called_
>>   Actual: false
>> Expected: true
>> google/protobuf/compiler/command_line_interface_unittest.cc:539: Failure
>> Value of: generator->parameter_
>>   Actual: ""
>> Expected: "bar"
>> [  FAILED  ] CommandLineInterfaceTest.WindowsOutputPathAndParameter
>>
>>
>>
>> Hopeing you can help me.
>> Best Regards  / Niclas Blomgren
>>
>>
>>  ------------------------------
>> *From:* Kenton Varda [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> *Sent:* den 23 oktober 2008 00:19
>> *To:* Niclas Blomgren
>> *Cc:* protobuf@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: Make check reports error
>>
>>   On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 7:23 AM, Niclas Blomgren <
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>  Solaris:
>>>
>> I'm guessing this was a sparc system, not x86?  Was it 32-bit or 64-bit?
>>  I think someone else reported the same problem but we were not able to
>> track it down.
>>
>>>  Cygwin:
>>>
>> Can you include the text of the actual failures in your log?  (You only
>> included the summary.)
>>
>
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To post to this group, send email to protobuf@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/protobuf?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to