Hello, i have this compiling problem (sorry if this isn't the correct list, if yes,
please let me know)
make[2]: *** [ppy.tab.c] core dumped
..
make[1]: *** [wrc/__depend__] Error 2
..
make: *** [tools/__depend__] Error 2
and what?
Thanks
Nobody can beat my old Pentium 133 with 64 Mb it usually took more than
4 hours to just do a make after a refresh
If you are really curious, I can time how long it takes to do a full build
Alberto
At 20.12 16/12/2002 -0700, Tony Lambregts wrote:
Bill Medland wrote:
On December 15,
At 02.02 17/12/2002 -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On December 16, 2002 02:37 pm, Alberto Massari wrote:
+void WINAPI SwitchToFiber(LPVOID lpFiber)
+{
+#ifdef HAVE_UCONTEXT_H
+PHFIBER pFiber,pCurrentFiber;
+pFiber=(PHFIBER)lpFiber;
+
At 22.51 15/12/2002 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
[..]
So how long does it take *you* to do a clean build
(just the 'make' part after 'make depend', say) of
Wine-20021125?
On a notebook with a Pentium III-M 600MHz, 256Mb of RAM, (Mandrake 9 with
gcc 3.2): 41m:32s
Alberto
Uwe Bonnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please let me know in what way the user is supposed to exclude whole dlls
from a relay trace so I can fix the behaviour and docs.
[Debug]
RelayExclude = user32.*;x11drv.*
should work.
--
Dmitry.
On December 17, 2002 04:59 am, Alberto Massari wrote:
It's just a matter of deciding what is best from a maintenance point of
view: grouping the working code or grouping the functions.
I would say grouping the working code is preferable (second patch you sent)
as the ugliness does not interfere
Alberto Massari [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It's just a matter of deciding what is best from a maintenance point
of view: grouping the working code or grouping the functions.
There are valid arguments in favour of both styles, and I have no
strong feelings, so I will submit the new patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On December 17, 2002 14:06, Rolf Kalbermatter wrote:
+#define ASK_DELETE_MULTIP LE_ITEM 3
I'm assuming you didn't mean to include that first space...
- -Ryan
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
Trying to run my work related code build process under wine results in some failures
with cygwin's gcc. Even with a simple hello world.c file and 'gcc -o test test.c' I
get:
0 [main] gcc -134958416 sync_with_child: child 134963016(0xB0) died before
initialization with status code 0x1
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 19:23, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
If anyone did not understand, my previous post was with Andy's
implementation of wineboot. This post is with the changes to the rest of
Wine to make wineboot fit in better.
Also - my previous patch included a Makefile file by mistake.
Raphaël Junqueira wrote:
[snip]
object-declLength = i + 1;
-object-function = pFunction;
if (NULL != pFunction) {
for (i = 0; 0x != pFunction[i]; ++i) ;
object-functionLength = i + 1;
} else {
- object-functionLength = 1; /* no Function defined use fixed
Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On December 16, 2002 01:08 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
Would this be more or less what you are looking for?
That's OK, but I was looking for some of them architecture
diagrams that explain the interaction between processes
and wineserver. Something to shed some light
strange... did you try running cygwin precompiled binaries ?
some commands seems to work.
maybe im not seeing something but all shells I try to execute with wcmd
just logout immediately when you run it. otherwise other commands seem
to be fine.
if gcc is creating subprocesses, I have the same
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trying to run my work related code build process under wine results in some failures
with cygwin's gcc. Even with a simple hello
world.c file and 'gcc -o test test.c' I get:
0 [main] gcc -134958416 sync_with_child: child 134963016(0xB0) died before
Uwe Bonnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+.I --debugmsg -relay
+will turn on all relay messages. For more control on including or excluding
+functions and dlls look into the [Debug] section of the wine configuration file.
Shouldn't it be '+relay'?
--
Dmitry.
Ahh, very cool. Is there anything we can do to keep cygwin from replacing
wines/libc's fork with its own and presumably fix this problem?
Chris
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 10:34 pm, Dmitry Timoshkov wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Trying to run my work related code build process under wine
Reading wine-cvs archive, I see that the patch doesn't create the
programs/wineboot directory in the repository.
Is this point mandatory ?
=
Sylvain Petreolle
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fight against Spam ! http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html
ICQ #170597259
Don't think you are. Know you are.
On December 18, 2002 12:22 am, Chris Morgan wrote:
Ahh, very cool. Is there anything we can do to keep cygwin from replacing
wines/libc's fork with its own and presumably fix this problem?
I would say: why doesn't cygwin's fork work on top of wine? I'd say
that needs to be fixed, if possible.
Chris Morgan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ahh, very cool. Is there anything we can do to keep cygwin from replacing
wines/libc's fork with its own and presumably fix this problem?
I'm afraid it's impossible to replace cygwin's fork by an one from libc.
Cygwin makes some assumptions about
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 18 December 2002 02:08, Tony Lambregts wrote:
Raphaël Junqueira wrote:
[snip]
object-declLength = i + 1;
-object-function = pFunction;
if (NULL != pFunction) {
for (i = 0; 0x != pFunction[i]; ++i) ;
20 matches
Mail list logo
