Re: [Gcl-devel] Windows random test results

[Camm Maguire]

Thanks Mike!

"Mike Thomas" <address@hidden> writes:

> | Mike!  You did it!  That macro certainly needs to be defined, as its
> | analog is in sfaslelf.c and sfaslbfd.c.  Gcc is not obligated in any
> | way to put init at offset 0.  Great!  It sounds as if this solves *all
> | known problems*, Yes?  Kudos!
> 
> Thanks Camm.
> 
> At midnight I found another problem (again linker/optimisation I think)
> mentioned in an earlier email this morning from my home address; which email
> seems not to have gotten through to the GCL list.
> 

Details?  I think I've missed this.

Great work!  We're really close now...

Take care,

> That problem does not manifest with the default stable CVS configuration so
> although it is a wildcard, it is not a show-stopper.  I'll try and look into
> it today.
> 
> When I left for work the random tester was still churning away at about 7000
> iterations on stable GCL and hopefully will continue to run all day.  At
> about a thousand iterations per hour since midnight I hope that by seven
> this evening it will have completed roughly 20,000 iterations (arguments
> 1000, 8 per your email last week).  I'll aim to leave another tester running
> here overnight on a 2.4 GHz Win XP machine with GCL built under gcc 3.3.3.
> 
> As usual I'll keep you and anyone else who cares to read voluminously
> informed!
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Mike Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Camm Maguire                                            address@hidden
==========================================================================
"The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah