Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler configured with --enable-checking or should I file bug reports?

One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones.
Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9

More important to me right now though:
It seems Makefile.am is missing the testgc target?

On 21 February 2012 12:03, Johannes Pfau <nospam@example.com> wrote:
> Is make unittest known to be broken when used with a compiler configured with --enable-checking or should I file bug reports?
>
> One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones.
> Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
> http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9
>
> More important to me right now though:
> It seems Makefile.am is missing the testgc target?
>
>

I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

>> One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones.
>> Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2):
>> http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9
>
> I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?

DustMite gogogo.

Am Tue, 21 Feb 2012 18:19:01 +0100
schrieb Trass3r <un@known.com>:

> >> One failure seems related to #307, but there are some unrelated ones. Here's the output (using GCC 4.6.2): http://pastebin.com/PtNtTHG9
> >
> > I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?
> 
> DustMite gogogo.

Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)

>> DustMite gogogo.
>
> Yep that's what I'll do next ;-)

Hmm indeed, lots of crashes when building the unittests.
Reducing std.container ICE now.

> I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?

Think it's done.
6 new issues opened.

On 21 February 2012 22:41, Trass3r <un@known.com> wrote:
>> I'll have to check tonight.  Can you reduce these down to minimal test cases?
>
>
> Think it's done.
> 6 new issues opened.

boo hoo. :)


-- 
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';