Re: gcc warnings

2012-07-02 Thread David Kastrup
Werner LEMBERG writes: > Folks, > > > compiling git 17270930 with gcc 4.6.2 I get the following warnings: > > beaming-pattern.cc: > In function > 'void find_location( > SCM, Moment, Moment, Rational, > Moment*, Moment*, Moment*)': > beaming-pattern.cc:220:39: >

gcc warnings

2012-07-02 Thread Werner LEMBERG
Folks, compiling git 17270930 with gcc 4.6.2 I get the following warnings: beaming-pattern.cc: In function 'void find_location( SCM, Moment, Moment, Rational, Moment*, Moment*, Moment*)': beaming-pattern.cc:220:39: warning: conversion to 'int' from 'I64 {aka

Re: Cross-staff stems

2012-07-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 16:45:12 +0100 "Phil Holmes" wrote: > http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2427 links to an > example implementation of cross-staff stems done by Pavel. It's now > sort-of delivered as part of lilypond code, as a snippet in > snippets/new. AFAICS it's an almost

Re: formatted GNUmakefile

2012-07-02 Thread Werner LEMBERG
> * could you and Jan decide a formatting convention that we can apply > by hand or with a script? I don't have a definite answer on that; usually I follow my gut feelings. If in doubt, I use a more vertical formatting. Most of the decisions are simply a consequence of trying to stay within the

Re: formatted GNUmakefile

2012-07-02 Thread John Mandereau
Il giorno lun, 02/07/2012 alle 05.47 +0200, Werner LEMBERG ha scritto: > >> SUBDIRS = \ > >> python scripts \ > > > > I'm a big fan of splitting lists into one entry per line; esp. if > > you break at position 20 rather than 78. > > Yes! Of course, if you have a lot of small entries like > >

Cross-staff stems

2012-07-02 Thread Phil Holmes
http://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2427 links to an example implementation of cross-staff stems done by Pavel. It's now sort-of delivered as part of lilypond code, as a snippet in snippets/new. AFAICS it's an almost perfectly workable implementation. I think that an enhanceme

Re: screech-and-boink.ly

2012-07-02 Thread Phil Holmes
- Original Message - From: "John Mandereau" To: "Phil Holmes" Cc: "David Kastrup" ; Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 1:08 PM Subject: Re: screech-and-boink.ly Hello guys, Sorry for having caused so much nuisance and having been offline in the weekend :-( I'm trying to resume on this is

Re: building master / fixed all Critical?

2012-07-02 Thread John Mandereau
Il giorno lun, 02/07/2012 alle 12.50 +0100, Phil Holmes ha scritto: > It appears to kill the build system on a non-multi CPU make. See Mike's > emails concerning screech-and-boink. I can replicate the problem with make, > but if I run make -jX (X from 3 to 9) the build succeeds. Looks like >

Re: screech-and-boink.ly

2012-07-02 Thread John Mandereau
Hello guys, Sorry for having caused so much nuisance and having been offline in the weekend :-( I'm trying to resume on this issue, see below. Il giorno sab, 30/06/2012 alle 16.59 +0100, Phil Holmes ha scritto: > I think it's the first snippet that the build system tries to build with > lilypon

Re: building master / fixed all Critical?

2012-07-02 Thread Phil Holmes
- Original Message - From: "John Mandereau" To: "Graham Percival" Cc: Sent: Monday, July 02, 2012 12:21 PM Subject: Re: building master / fixed all Critical? Il giorno dom, 01/07/2012 alle 23.29 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto: I'm not certain where we stand. Over the weekend, s

Re: building master / fixed all Critical?

2012-07-02 Thread John Mandereau
Il giorno dom, 01/07/2012 alle 23.29 +0100, Graham Percival ha scritto: > I'm not certain where we stand. Over the weekend, some patches > were pushed (by accident?) to master. One (or more?) of those > commits broke compiling, and were reverted. This fix was (or will > be?) pushed to staging, a

Re: which-page (issue 6352049)

2012-07-02 Thread graham
LGTM http://codereview.appspot.com/6352049/ ___ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel