CT_PATCH_ORDER not defined

Heiko Zuerker heiko@zuerker.org
Sun Dec 19 17:01:00 GMT 2010


Quoting "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr>:

> Heiko, All,
> On Sunday 19 December 2010 17:01:56 Heiko Zuerker wrote:
>> Quoting "Yann E. MORIN" <yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr>:
>> > On Saturday 18 December 2010 22:31:28 Heiko Zuerker wrote:
>> >> I looked over the code and also couldn't find how or where the
>> >> CT_PATCH_LOCAL_FALLBACK_BUNDLED is handled (I could simply be blind
>> >> too).


>> I attached a patch which works.
> Did you even test my patch? It Works For Me (TM). ;-)

I did and had issues. I tried it again and it worked this time.
For now I'm going to blame my hangover... ;-)

>> The patch could be made much smaller, but I decided to rather make
>> sure others can read it.
> That patch should not be needed, as the existing code does exactly what is
> expected. Besides, the patch has a few shortcomings:
> - it tests for directory existence using -e when it should use -d, which
>   means it would believe a patch dir exists, when it is in fact a file (or
>   a fifo, or whatever);
> - it uses tabs instead of spaces (benign).

I did the -e on purpose, so symlinks would work too.

I'll be using your patch, since it seems to work fine. Thx!


   Heiko Zuerker

This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq

More information about the crossgcc mailing list