Hi Arjen:
The current set of shell scripts for testing have had constant maintenance
and improvement as long as I can remember. So I think taking a windows
batch file approach to do the same thing would create a substantial
maintenance issue that we should avoid if at all possible.
So I
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:06:29PM -0800, Alan Irwin wrote:
On 2009-01-16 23:43- Andrew Ross wrote:
If it is any consolation I can confirm your report on my Ubuntu system.
Example 24 has not been updated since mid 2006 other than for a const
char * tidy-up. The cookbook in in the
We've said that we will drop support for octave 2.1.x from this release.
Are people really happy for me to go and remove the legacy code which is
in place to support this? This would make life easier and also remove
some slightly irritating warnings for octave 3.0. Octave 3.0 seems
pretty stable
I've pinned down the problem, but I'm not quite sure why the code is
written the way it is.
The problem arises in src/plfreetype.c in FT_PlotChar. There are two
different code paths depending on whether the pixel mode is mono (i.e.
no anti-aliasing) or not. However, the first path is also taken
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:27:17PM +1000, Andrew Roach wrote:
I've pinned down the problem, but I'm not quite sure why the code is
written the way it is.
The problem arises in src/plfreetype.c in FT_PlotChar. There are two
different code paths depending on whether the pixel mode is mono
On 2009-01-19 11:01+0100 Werner Smekal wrote:
Hi,
Well, that does sound as a reasonable and little-work solution.
As CMake warns about not being able to find bash and therefore ctest
won't work, I thought that using MinGW might get me around this
problem.
But undoubtedly that introduces
On 2009-01-19 10:08- Andrew Ross wrote:
The [example 24 smooth=1] problem arises in src/plfreetype.c in FT_PlotChar.
There are two
different code paths depending on whether the pixel mode is mono (i.e.
no anti-aliasing) or not. However, the first path is also taken if icol0
= 0, i.e.
On 2009-01-19 10:12- Andrew Ross wrote:
We've said that we will drop support for octave 2.1.x from this release.
Actually, as stated in README.release we dropped support for 2.1.x in the
5.9.1 release, but I wanted to leave the notice in for this release and
subsequent ones up to and
