Re: CVS 1.10

sb> P E Jareth Hein <jareth(a)camelot.co.jp&gt; writes in sb> xemacs-beta(a)xemacs.org: >>sb> I see there's a new stable CVS out. Any success/horror stories, sb> or is this pretty much the same as 1.9.28/1.9.29? sb> So it built for you without regression errors? sb> I got: sb> $ make CFLAGS="-mpentium -march=pentium -O6 -fno-risc sb> -fno-peep-spills" check sb> ... sb> This test should produce no other output than this line, and a sb> final "OK". FAIL: devcom3-7 make[1]: *** [check] Error 1 sb> ... No problems for me, but then I didn't get aggressive on the optimization... (very pedestrian '-g -O'...) sb> Any clues about tracking this down? If backing down on the optimization doesn't help, (taking a look at src/sanity.sh) test devcom3-7 relates to working with setting watches on files and making sure all operations are forward compatible (i.e. won't clobber something it doesn't quite understand). Poking around in fileattr.c code or watch.c could be fruitful, I'd think. (btw: what compiler?) sb> O.K. How are you doing local testing? I want to replace the 1.9 sb> binaries I have, but not with any risk to XEmacs. I've copied my local CVS repository into a second local repository, and added another account that points to it by default and am doing a little playing around. Not exactly systematic, but covering the options I use here daily. Still haven't played much with branches yet... Maybe this weekend. -- Jareth Hein | jareth(a)camelot.co.jp | ハイン ジェラス Toolsmith & Program lead | http://www.camelot.co.jp | 開発部チーフ Camelot Software, Ltd. | |（株）キャメロット "It's a sad sign of the times when 'political machine' is redefined to include 'main-line battle tank'" - Ambassador Grossblunder