search for: end_of_lines

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "end_of_lines".

Did you mean: end_of_line
2020 Aug 15
2
Tests failing on CentOS 6
Getting this when attempting to build 2.3.11.3 on CentOS 6: test-mail-cache.c:176: Assert failed: strcmp(str_c(str),"123\nfoo\n456\nbar\n") "" != "123 foo 456 bar " test-mail-cache.c:176: Assert failed: strcmp(str_c(str),"123\nfoo\n456\nbar\n") "" != "123 foo 456 bar " mail cache uncommitted lookups
2020 Aug 17
0
Tests failing on CentOS 6
...but that's a 4M file so I'll provide it upon request. > > For now I'm going ot have to bypass the make check stage of the build for CentOS 6, but I worry that the failed check could be indicative of something critical. Looks like it's a gcc bug. It's not initializing the end_of_lines field in the unit test. Since it's in the unit test only, it's not harmful. Of course, the same gcc bug could be hitting some important places in the code.. but that's not a new issue. Only this unit test is really new and exposing this issue. The problem goes away with: diff --git a/...
2012 Jun 05
3
[LLVMdev] sample of running google c++ lint script
Just as an example, I picked totally at random, one c++ program to run the google code style checker. There are clearly some valid points it found. I think it would good to start to adapt this tool or write a new tool to do style checking and to start to better formalize the llvm rules. I ran it against Target/Target.cpp Target.cpp:0: No copyright message found. You should have a line:
2012 Jun 05
0
[LLVMdev] sample of running google c++ lint script
On 05.06.2012 02:56, reed kotler wrote: > Just as an example, I picked totally at random, one c++ program to run > the google code style checker. > > There are clearly some valid points it found. I think it would good to > start to adapt this tool > or write a new tool to do style checking and to start to better > formalize the llvm rules. > > I ran it against
2012 Jun 05
4
[LLVMdev] sample of running google c++ lint script
Did you agree with the comment about the use of long long from the tool? Anyway, it's not really important to me that we adopt any specific google code rules over the current llvm rule. The point is to that Google has a deeper set of conventions and it would be a good starting point for us. Also, they have a tool which checks a lot of this. The lack of a tool for llvm style check is what