• Johannes Pfau (7/7) Feb 21 2012 Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler
• Iain Buclaw (5/12) Feb 21 2012 I'll have to check tonight. Can you reduce these down to minimal test c...
• Trass3r (1/6) Feb 21 2012 DustMite gogogo.
• Johannes Pfau (3/11) Feb 21 2012 Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)
• Trass3r (2/4) Feb 21 2012 Hmm indeed, lots of crashes when building the unittests.
• Trass3r (2/4) Feb 21 2012 Think it's done.
• Iain Buclaw (5/9) Feb 21 2012 boo hoo. :)

Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:

Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler
configured with --enable-checking or should I file bug reports?


Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9

More important to me right now though:
It seems Makefile.am is missing the testgc target?

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

On 21 February 2012 12:03, Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> wrote:
 Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler
 configured with --enable-checking or should I file bug reports?


 Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
 http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9

 More important to me right now though:
 It seems Makefile.am is missing the testgc target?

I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
 http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9

 I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test  
 cases?

DustMite gogogo.

Johannes Pfau <nospam example.com> writes:

Am Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:19:01 +0100
schrieb Trass3r <un known.com>:


 ones. Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
 http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9

 I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal
 test cases?

 
 DustMite gogogo.

Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 DustMite gogogo.

 Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)

Hmm indeed, lots of crashes when building the unittests.
Reducing std.container ICE now.

Trass3r <un known.com> writes:

 I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test  
 cases?

Think it's done.
6 new issues opened.

Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw ubuntu.com> writes:

On 21 February 2012 22:41, Trass3r <un known.com> wrote:
 I'll have to check tonight. =A0Can you reduce these down to minimal test
 cases?


 Think it's done.
 6 new issues opened.

boo hoo. :)


--=20
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) =3D (c & 0x0f) + '0';