similar to: Logging bugs (was Re: Toplevel domain and facter)

I just upgraded to Rails 1.1 and have now gotten a few of these to stdout: /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/actionpack-1.12.0/lib/action_controller/routing.rb:249: warning: toplevel constant Type referenced by Item::Type What do they mean? Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

This issue has been discussed before (http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/ 125392) and after spending a while debugging through this, I still don''t have a solution. Lets try again? I have two controllers, SomeController and Admin::SomeController. When SomeController is loaded first (which happens under spork, found out by editing ActiveSupport::AbstractController) I get warning: toplevel

start by ignoring make generated objects. subdirectories need specific rules later. makes git status more meaningfull. Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <maks at sternwelten.at> --- .gitignore | 11 +++++++++++ 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) --- /dev/null 2006-07-14 10:57:32.128246500 +0200 +++ klibc.git/.gitignore 2006-07-16 20:29:39.000000000 +0200 @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +# NOTE!

> Are there any reasons why option can't be supported by llvm? It is hard and has very few users. For this to work you would have to add ordering information to the LLVM IL. It looks easier to patch eglibc. > Regards, > Sergey Yakoushkin Cheers, -- Rafael Ávila de Espíndola

> I agree, impact of issue is limited. But it prevents out of the box > compilation of libraries for some targets. > Also, looks like glibc and eglibc maintainers do not welcome patches > for llvm (yet). I would be very surprised if glibc ever does. I don't have any experience with eglibc. > In general, saving order of appearance doesn't seem to be bad thing. > Are

Hi When building with GCC 10, gcc is stricter in handling handling of symbol clashes. Fedora, has fixed this with a patch from Dominik Mierzejewski: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tftp/c/5e2aa55b6802a52ef480d688b3ae4751220f20e0.patch Attaching the corresponding patch for git am. Regards, Salvatore >From 9e7641bf58df9dda3bc51f381f371fa7cbce47af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Salvatore

Hi When building with GCC 10, gcc is stricter in handling handling of symbol clashes. Fedora, has fixed this with a patch from Dominik Mierzejewski: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tftp/c/5e2aa55b6802a52ef480d688b3ae4751220f20e0.patch Attaching the corresponding patch for git am. I'm sending the patch which was submitted a while ago to the list. Is there something you wanted to be

In trfs-progs 4.4 the error message has been changed, and our check did not work anymore. Yes, parsing user messages really sucks... --- daemon/btrfs.c | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/btrfs.c b/daemon/btrfs.c index 85dbe00..c67af83 100644 --- a/daemon/btrfs.c +++ b/daemon/btrfs.c @@ -1029,9 +1029,12 @@ do_btrfs_subvolume_show (const char

On 2010-02-21 23:36, Sergey Yakoushkin wrote: > Hi, Rafael > > Inlined asm markup inside functions and on the top level is used to > split asm prologue/epilogue parts in very fine-grained manner. > So, splitting source c won't give the same result. You could have 2 files: - 1 which contains the function, and a marker where prolog ends (beginning of file is implicit marker of

Hi, >> Are there any reasons why option can't be supported by llvm? > It is hard and has very few users. For this to work you would have to > add ordering information to the LLVM IL. It looks easier to patch > eglibc. I agree, impact of issue is limited. But it prevents out of the box compilation of libraries for some targets. Also, looks like glibc and eglibc maintainers do

Hi, llvm doesn't support -fno-toplevel-reorder option which affects glibc/eglibc for some targets. http://www.llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6364 >From conversations with gcc and eglibc maintainers, seems option is highly expected and is not going to deprecate. >> 2010/2/23 Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google.com>: >> If option is going to deprecate in gcc in near future as

Hi, Rafael Inlined asm markup inside functions and on the top level is used to split asm prologue/epilogue parts in very fine-grained manner. So, splitting source c won't give the same result. Regards, Sergey Y. 2010/2/22 Rafael Espindola <espindola at google.com> I haven't looked at the code, but why can't you split the .c files > into multiple files instead of splitting

Hi, Are there any existing patches (or instructions) for eglibc(may be glibc/uclibc) to build it correctly with llvm-gcc? Could you please point to them? I'm cross-compiling eglibc for new processor using llvm-gcc. Build passes, but creates mis-optimized crt* files due to lack of -fno-toplevel-reorder support. Seems there are reasons to skip support of this option in llvm.

Hi everybody, I am trying to write a simple progress display based on a tcltk toplevel. My first approach was to use the progressBar widget from the BWidget library but since this is not available on every system (missing on at least almost all windows systems, I guess...) I wanted to have a backup there. So my second strategy was to use a simple toplevel with a label and update the tclvariable

I have an odd problem. I got controllers in a namespace and controllers outside of the namespace. For example, I have a PagesController and a Admin::PagesController. When I run rspec from the top, tests pass and I get the following warning: spec/controllers/admin/pages_controller_spec.rb:4: warning: toplevel constant PagesController referenced by Admin::PagesController This makes no sense. I do