[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Lippert, Ross A.
Fri, 27 Oct 2000 17:10:31 -0400
In a recent build from the CVS I found otu I needed flex 2.5.4 or higher.
This is clear because of a test that goes on in octave/src/lex.l on some
I am not sure what config program sets these variables.
Anyhow, bottom line is I should not have to alerted of this in the
middle of the make, which currently I am. I should be told of the
incorrect version during ./configure, right?
From: John W. Eaton [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2000 3:36 PM
To: Lippert, Ross A.
Subject: RE: weirdness of Dec alphas
On 27-Oct-2000, Lippert, Ross A. <address@hidden> wrote:
| OK, so let me get this straight:
| The best way for me to fix my alpha problem
I don't know what the best fix is. I still don't know what the
problem is. Your first report of a problem (other than the lapack
one) simply said that
BTW oct-time.cc has some trouble in it (checking whether something
is defined instead of whether something is false, preventing a compile
on the dec alpha). If it hasn't been fixed yet I'll send an easy
patch for it.
Look at it from my point of view. This is really vague, so how can I
fix it? You don't even say what version of Octave you are using. I
guessed latest 2.1.x or CVS since you sent your first message to
octave-maintainers, in which case I don't think it is unreasonable to
ask you to take a look at the CVS archive. Now you are saying
BTW I checked the latest liboctave/oct-time.cc and it really does need
of the form
which is a bit more specific, but it still doesn't tell me enough to
know why I should make any change like this. What problem is it
trying to solve?
- flex version,
Lippert, Ross A. <=