From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20913 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2007 16:06:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 20903 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2007 16:06:21 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_LWSHORTT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:06:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l26G69hu014619; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:06:09 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l26G6874003477; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:06:08 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (sebastian-int.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.221]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l26G66e5013638; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:06:06 -0500 Message-ID: <45ED9168.6060505@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 16:06:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070102) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mark Wielaard CC: frysk@sourceware.org Subject: Re: frysk-imports/frysk/expunit ChangeLog Equals.j ... References: <20070305135202.24295.qmail@sourceware.org> <45ED8846.4080901@redhat.com> <1173195413.4257.52.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1173195413.4257.52.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q1/txt/msg00179.txt.bz2 Mark, I did a quick clean revert; methods such as group(...) were still missing :-(. Can you post the warnings you're seeing so you/i can figure out what really should be changed? If the warnings are significantly different then there's the complicating problem - for the moment only you will be seeing and fixing those problems. In the short term, it may be prudent to scale back the warnings issued by the new compiler. Andrew Mark Wielaard wrote: > On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 10:27 -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> I don't follow these changes. If the code stripping of the matched text >> was removed, then TestExpect and other code would start failing - was >> this tested? And the grouping code is so that expect clients can access >> the parts that were matched, that functionality was lost? >> > > Yes this was a mistake. Fixed in the followup patch. The warnings that > the new ecj gave had me confused. Sorry about that. > > Cheers, > > Mark > >