On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
Modified Files:
src/tests/ipf: t_filter_exec.sh t_filter_parse.sh t_nat_exec.sh
t_nat_ipf_exec.sh
Log Message:
Mark the failing tests as broken. XXX: If no one is willing to maintain
the ipf tests, these should be removed.
I
On 27 March 2012 22:38, Alan Barrett a...@cequrux.com wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
Modified Files:
src/tests/ipf: t_filter_exec.sh t_filter_parse.sh t_nat_exec.sh
t_nat_ipf_exec.sh
Log Message:
Mark the failing tests as broken. XXX: If no one is
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:38:50PM +0200, Alan Barrett wrote:
Mark the failing tests as broken. XXX: If no one is willing to maintain
the ipf tests, these should be removed.
I object to this. If ipf fails its tests, then the fact should be
made clear in the test reports, not hidden by
I think that this is failure of the tests. The tests were fixed at one
point, right before the import of new version was reverted. It appears
that the re-import has not quite caught up to the pre-revert state.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2012, Jukka Ruohonen wrote:
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 03:38:50PM
Hi,
It seems that lint(1) is not cross build safe, it doesn't handle MD char
default type of sign/unsignd. See src/usr.bin/xlint/lint1/tree.c::cvtcon().
They use host MD CHAR_MAX directry ;)
So, if cross building ppc/arm on other arch cause false alarm , out of
range warnng.
Regards.
--
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 20:19:41 +, Christos Zoulas wrote:
In article
CAN6pqGQMV-JtfuidyRAH1VoYV7mJott=aruq3t3nro1kwcd...@mail.gmail.com,
Takehiko NOZAKI takehiko.noz...@gmail.com wrote:
-=-=-=-=-=-
Hi,
It seems that lint(1) is not cross build safe, it doesn't handle MD char
In article 20120327202907.gt26...@bigmac.stderr.spb.ru,
Valeriy E. Ushakov u...@stderr.spb.ru wrote:
But that is not what the code was. The code was:
char c; if (c == CHAR_MAX) ...
and *that* is portable. As I said in another mail to thsi thread that
went unanswered, it is literally
On 28 March 2012 07:53, Christos Zoulas chris...@astron.com wrote:
In article 20120327202907.gt26...@bigmac.stderr.spb.ru,
Valeriy E. Ushakov u...@stderr.spb.ru wrote:
But that is not what the code was. The code was:
char c; if (c == CHAR_MAX) ...
and *that* is portable. As I said in
