Re: [Bug-gnubg] Windows build 021129 (makefile) - gnbug_ts0.bd question

[Jim Segrave]

On Fri 29 Nov 2002 (21:01 +0100), Jim Segrave wrote:
> On Fri 29 Nov 2002 (20:48 +0100), Nardy Pillards wrote:
> > Attached 'my' latest Makefile.
> > 
> > A question here:
> > br1.c is generated with the new -f from makebearoff.
> > 
> > However, for gnubg_ts0.bd, when I did:
> > " makebearoff -t 6x6 -f gnubg_ts0.bd "
> > gnubg.exe crashed.
> > So I started again with:
> > " makebearoff -t 6x6 > gnubg_ts0.bd "
> > 
> > (but I am not sure if this is the right way, seems to me -f has to be used?)
> 
> Yes - otherwise you'll have the line endings problem.
> Can you point me to a place where I can get the 
>  makebearoff -t 6x6 -f gnubg_ts0.bd 
> 
> output file so I can compare it to the Unix one I have? I'd expect the
> crash to happen the other way around (the gnubg_ts0.bd from the
> redirected output will have the same problem as the built-in one-sided
> one and will go wandering into strange memory when accessed, as Joern
> pointed out)

The gnubg_ts0.exe on your web site is definitely not a good idea -
it's got the extra carriage returns in it and it's 6851238 rather than
6830248 bytes long, and that will be the 20990 occurrences of line
feed in the raw data.

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden