[Bug 908508]

2012-02-27 Thread Christopher-leary
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #57) Chris, can you review it ? i see no reason to wait for 661974, and it would fix the build for exotic architectures. Sure, will try to get it done tomorrow! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is

[Bug 908508]

2012-02-17 Thread Christopher-leary
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #44) Will that mean that !yarr-jit will become part of the 'regular testsuite', so that build breakage are detected on tbpl ? Not build breakage, no, since we won't build with !YARR_JIT, but correctness testing (since we can disable the JIT at runtime and

[Bug 908508]

2012-02-15 Thread Christopher-leary
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #41) Apart checkSyntax, it should be okay. Chris, any idea what to do about that, and would it be so wrong to return true, given that it worksforme ? Hey Landry, sorry for the delay on this. We have to do something about checkSyntax. I need to create a

[Bug 908508]

2012-01-22 Thread Christopher-leary
(In reply to Mike Hommey [:glandium] from comment #29) Yes, but for sparc, it's more subtle: ENABLE_ASSEMBLER needs to be set for the normal non YARR JIT. Man, what a mess. This is what happens when you don't test non-standard configurations. I had a patch that dropped off my radar in bug

[Bug 908508]

2012-01-18 Thread Christopher-leary
(In reply to Landry Breuil from comment #18) Another annoyance was the landing of bug #673188, which right now #errors out if ENABLE_YARR_JIT is unset (see RegExpObject.cpp, function checkSyntax()), pretty unfriendly. So far i've replaced it by a return true, but it's of course ugly. It's