Re: [opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[]

2003-12-12 Thread Martin S. Tignor
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 05:40, Marco Morandini wrote: This patch should take care of the delete of something allocated with new[] part of http://opendx.watson.ibm.com/dx/mailArchives/mails.html/opendx-dev.0310/msg5.html Regards, Marco Morandini OK, I applied these

[opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[]

2003-12-09 Thread Marco Morandini
This patch should take care of the delete of something allocated with new[] part of http://opendx.watson.ibm.com/dx/mailArchives/mails.html/opendx-dev.0310/msg5.html Regards, Marco Morandini Index: src/uipp/base/Command.C

Re: [opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[]

2003-12-09 Thread l . planeta
I'll try out these patches unless someone else wants the job. This patch should take care of the delete of something allocated with new[] part of http://opendx.watson.ibm.com/dx/mailArchives/mails.html/opendx-dev.0310/msg5 .html

Re: [opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[]

2003-12-09 Thread David L Thompson
These have already been rolled into 4.3.2. David Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue 12/9/03 6:03 To: opendx2-dev@lists.berlios.de Subject:Re: [opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[] I'll try out

Re: [opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[]

2003-12-09 Thread Martin S. Tignor
On Tue, 2003-12-09 at 12:55, Marco Morandini wrote: David L Thompson wrote: These have already been rolled into 4.3.2. Perhaps I'm wrong (or the patch is simply wrong), but I don't think so. I guess I also don't follow. ...probably just making the same CVS mistake as Marco. My thinking

Re: [opendx-dev] [PATCH] delete of something allocated with new[]

2003-12-09 Thread David Thompson
If you look at the 1.13-1.12 diff of MsgWin.C, you'll see that I did change one delete (there were a whole bunch in that set of commits at that time). All of the delete's I fixed were the ones that were automatically detected by gcc 3.2. The problems they were having were with gcc complaining