-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.7k
Fix infinite compilation problems on some gcc variants (Issue #214) #217
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Where are we on this? |
I was quite busy for a while with other things and will proceed somewhen during or at the end of this week |
Don't worry about the appveyor error. Not sure, but it might be simply that you don't have You must fix the Travis error:
Also, you need to rebase on the tip of I would help you with this, but my laptop was stolen this week. I don't yet have a development environment, aside from my company's servers. |
My bad - I corrected the oversight and pushed it as well. Except for the AppVeyor errors it seems to look ok to me now. In regard to your stolen laptop I can feel the pain - ouch! I'm also sorry for the trouble I'm causing with the merge - albeit I'm using git since years this is my first experience with working on a fork, I really have severe problems understanding the concepts behind that approach. As you suggested I tried to rebase, but Tortoise says now "Nothing need rebase - master equal remotes/origin/master". Isn't this state correct? |
#247 is your code, sans the snprintf stuff (which is a separate issue), rebased onto my appveyor branch (to get appveyor.yml) excluding dups which were already incorporated into master. I did this:
That means "rebase the current branch onto the appveyor branch of the cdunn2001 remote, but only include commits down-to (and not including) 7cea2d3", which happens to be your most recent merge commit from origin/master. appveyor passed most tests, but failed this:
(#248 is a PR for your request without appveyor. I rebased the same code to You will have much more fun with git if you learn how to rebase. I don't know how to do that with Tortoise. I use shell commands. If you don't know how to rebase, then you should throw away your current branch and pull from the At any rate, you need to fix the MS failures. |
None of the test cases fails on my side and I'm working with Visual Studio 2012. Why do you think that my additional changes are not relevant - I'm pretty sure they are! |
Pull my branch of your code and take a look. (Or just peruse it in the GitHub browser.) Maybe it's missing something. Maybe I did not resolve the conflicts correctly. |
The branch you pointed me too clearly is not the code that I committed in my fork. As I said, the other changes are relevant, too. Sigh - working via forks is not much of a fun to me. Should I maybe try to create a diff file and upload it? I have no good ideas anymore. |
You need to learn how to rebase. You can rebase yourself and get whatever you need. The code here is merged from
See? Your code is based off You could also diff between yours and mine. Here: Here, this PR will give us a place to discuss the actual diffs. Don't actually pull it. Just comment on the diffs: |
Hmmm. I don't understand what happened in that rebase. You're right: A lot of your changes are gone. I'll try it again... Even for the comparison, GitHub does not show the diffs properly. I don't know why yet. Anyway, here are the diffs:
It's hard to see without colors, but hopefully you can see what's different. The main thing is the removal of your new file, Also, learn |
What is the advantage of commenting on Dani-Hub#1 ? I do know that it's broken, because my implementation was exactly written to fix the previous limitations of the HEAD code, since neither it nor Dani-Hub#1 does respect the |
Ignore Dani-Hub#1. I don't know why git shows such odd diffs. If you can find a friend who knows git better, do that. Otherwise, I'll try to resolve the remaining diffs when I have time. |
The provided patch has been tested on gcc mingw 5.0.0 and for Visual Studio 2012.