Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course, the patch is more than somewhat strange anyway. I don't think
> it should be applied unless we actually know what's going on.
Yeah. Just the first question it raises is: what else is broken,
and where?
regards, tom
Christopher Browne wrote:
Actually, there is a reason NOT to apply the patch in general on all
platforms; it introduces logic (an if {} else {} statement) in a place
where there wasn't previously one, which *presumably* slows things
down somewhat. I don't know if the memcpy() calls are invoke
> Chris Browne wrote:
>> We haven't seen any agreement emerge as to what is causing AIX 5.3 ML3
>> to fail to successfully build the release candidates.
>>
>> However, a patch has emerged (thanks, Seneca!) that does allow it to
>> work, and which I'd expect to be portable (better still!).
>>
>> W
Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
> Chris Browne wrote:
> > We haven't seen any agreement emerge as to what is causing AIX 5.3 ML3
> > to fail to successfully build the release candidates.
> >
> > However, a patch has emerged (thanks, Seneca!) that does allow it to
> > work, and which I'd expect to be p
Chris Browne wrote:
> We haven't seen any agreement emerge as to what is causing AIX 5.3 ML3
> to fail to successfully build the release candidates.
>
> However, a patch has emerged (thanks, Seneca!) that does allow it to
> work, and which I'd expect to be portable (better still!).
>
> We are sti
Patch applied. Thanks.
---
Chris Browne wrote:
> We haven't seen any agreement emerge as to what is causing AIX 5.3 ML3
> to fail to successfully build the release candidates.
>
> However, a patch has emerged (thanks, Sen
We haven't seen any agreement emerge as to what is causing AIX 5.3 ML3
to fail to successfully build the release candidates.
However, a patch has emerged (thanks, Seneca!) that does allow it to
work, and which I'd expect to be portable (better still!).
We are still actively pursuing why it breaks
