On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 01:06:55 -0400 Mario Domenech Goulart
mario.goul...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:09:42 +0200 (CEST) Felix
fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote:
I can not reproduce this, and only can test on a PPC64 (gcc compile
farm). This bug looks a bit obscure.
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:51:14PM +0200, Felix wrote:
The attached patch fixes a bug reported by Christian. The type-validation
of deprecated type-specifiers returned an incorrect value. Also, a small
bug in the type-database is fixed.
I decided to add some regression tests for this and
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:51:14PM +0200, Felix wrote:
The attached patch fixes a bug reported by Christian. The type-validation
of deprecated type-specifiers returned an incorrect value. Also, a small
bug in the type-database is fixed.
I decided to add some regression tests for this and
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 02:16:47PM +0200, Felix wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:51:14PM +0200, Felix wrote:
Attached is a modified version of your patch which fixes the bug,
and contains a regression test.
Urks. Thanks for catching this. Looks good to me. Can someone sign this
off? We
Hi,
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 14:06:28 +0200 Peter Bex peter@xs4all.nl wrote:
On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 11:51:14PM +0200, Felix wrote:
The attached patch fixes a bug reported by Christian. The type-validation
of deprecated type-specifiers returned an incorrect value. Also, a small
bug in the
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 01:46:43PM -0400, Mario Domenech Goulart wrote:
While testing Peter's patch, I noticed it breaks boot-chicken. The
build of library.scm is aborted with:
Error: (length) bad argument type - not a proper list: (procedure
return-to-host () . *)
[...]
instead (diff
Since I approved the basic idea and implementation of your patch, and you
approved my additional changes (which I obviously also approve of), we
have two developers in agreement over a patch. I think this means you
can sign off on it (since my patch is last). It's a bit odd given the
git
On Sat, Sep 08, 2012 at 10:50:24PM +0200, Felix wrote:
Since I approved the basic idea and implementation of your patch, and you
approved my additional changes (which I obviously also approve of), we
have two developers in agreement over a patch. I think this means you
can sign off on it
I haven't filed a bug, but the Cygwin test failures are ominous.
Yeah, that's rather worrying. I think this needs to be addressed before
making a release, unless we intend to drop support for Cygwin (in this
release).
Oh, wonderful. I've created a ticket (#919). Now we have two obscure
Hi,
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:09:42 +0200 (CEST) Felix
fe...@call-with-current-continuation.org wrote:
I can not reproduce this, and only can test on a PPC64 (gcc compile
farm). This bug looks a bit obscure.
I can't either on NetBSD/macppc, but AFAIK Mario can reproduce it
reliably. If
The attached patch fixes a bug reported by Christian. The type-validation
of deprecated type-specifiers returned an incorrect value. Also, a small
bug in the type-database is fixed.
This should go into 4.8.0, I think.
From 74d8892ad71dd85ad58df549fc23f61cd2e147ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From:
11 matches
Mail list logo
