OK.
Thanks.
I had to fixup the gendef...
1. You check for gnu compliant malloc but not define the rpl_malloc,
so I removed this check.
2. You treat warnings as errors and do not eliminate unused parameters.
Attached is a patch.
Alon
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Kai Tietz
Hi Kai,
I didn't noticed this change in behavior. Could you provide to me some
small testcase by which I can reproduce this?
I'll create a simple test case over the holidays. As it stands today,
I see it with my Emerge Desktop application, but it by no means is a
simple test case.
The only
2009/12/23 Alon Bar-Lev alon.bar...@gmail.com:
OK.
Thanks.
I had to fixup the gendef...
1. You check for gnu compliant malloc but not define the rpl_malloc,
so I removed this check.
2. You treat warnings as errors and do not eliminate unused parameters.
Thanks for reporting this warning.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
The change about malloc isn't used AFAICS, but well I want to keep it,
as we plan to improve the conditional header includes in future.
Does this line leads to an build error for you?
Yes... It is needed.
Once the
2009/12/23 Chris Sutcliffe ir0nh...@gmail.com:
Hi Kai,
I didn't noticed this change in behavior. Could you provide to me some
small testcase by which I can reproduce this?
I'll create a simple test case over the holidays. As it stands today,
I see it with my Emerge Desktop application, but
Great!
It works.
But... Why there is a huge difference between lib64 and lib32 libraries?
I see that lib32 contains only 142 libraries while lib64 contains 2042.
For example libpdh is missing in lib32.
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/12/22 Kai
2009/12/23 Alon Bar-Lev alon.bar...@gmail.com:
Great!
It works.
Thanks for testing. I will apply it to v1.0 branch and trunk.
But... Why there is a huge difference between lib64 and lib32 libraries?
I see that lib32 contains only 142 libraries while lib64 contains 2042.
For example libpdh
2009/12/23 Alon Bar-Lev alon.bar...@gmail.com:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Kai Tietz ktiet...@googlemail.com wrote:
The change about malloc isn't used AFAICS, but well I want to keep it,
as we plan to improve the conditional header includes in future.
Does this line leads to an build
