f



Re: [ace-users] ACE Tests FAIL on Windows XP / Cygwin / gcc 3.4.4

Hi,

Thanks for using the prf form. This is a known issue, Cygwin support is
experimental and not ready for production. Have a look at the link below, we
do as Remedy IT a daily build with Cygwin but disabled the tests last
november because they caused problems on our build system. We did fix a lot
of issues in the past but we haven't continued with that because we had no
funding for the Cygwin port. Please deliver patches to improve the cygwin
support or hire commercial support to improve the Cygwin port.

http://www.dre.vanderbilt.edu/~remedynl/teststat/builds/WinXP_Cygwin_GCC_3_4
_4_ACE.html 

Regards,

Johnny Willemsen
Remedy IT
Postbus 101
2650 AC  Berkel en Rodenrijs
The Netherlands
www.theaceorb.nl / www.remedy.nl  


"nitin" <g6nitin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:<1169477696.240679.5360@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
> 
> 
>    ACE VERSION: 5.5
> 
>     HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: Microsoft Windows XP
> Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2
>         If on Windows based OS's, which version of WINSOCK do you
>         use?:
>         Version 3.10.0.103
> 
> 
> 
>     TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST:
>     COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL):
> 
>    Cygwin 1.5.23-2 and gcc version 3.4.4
> 
>     THE $ACE_ROOT/ace/config.h FILE [if you use a link to a platform-
>     specific file, simply state which one]:
> 
> #include "ace/config-cygwin32.h"
> 
>     THE $ACE_ROOT/include/makeinclude/platform_macros.GNU FILE [if you
>     use a link to a platform-specific file, simply state which one
>     (unless this isn't used in this case, e.g., with Microsoft Visual
>     C++)]:
> 
> include $(ACE_ROOT)/include/makeinclude/platform_cygwin32.GNU
> 
>     CONTENTS OF
> $ACE_ROOT/bin/MakeProjectCreator/config/default.features
>     (used by MPC when you generate your own makefiles):
> 
>     AREA/CLASS/EXAMPLE AFFECTED:
> [What example failed?  What module failed to compile?]
> 
> ACE Tests compile and link fine but none of the tests execute properly.
> 
> 
>     DOES THE PROBLEM AFFECT:
>         COMPILATION? NO
>         LINKING? NO
>             On Unix systems, did you run make realclean first?
>         EXECUTION? YES
>         OTHER (please specify)?
> [Please indicate whether ACE, your application, or both are affected.]
> 
>     SYNOPSIS:
> [Brief description of the problem]
> 
> All ACE Tests FAIL with exit status 53
> 
>     DESCRIPTION:
> [Detailed description of problem.  Don't just say "<blah>
> doesn't work, here's a fix," explain what your program does
> to get to the <blah> state. ]
> 
> I ran the tests in $ACE_ROOT/tests using perl run_test.pl  and this is
> an example of the results:
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Upgradable_RW_Test Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Upgradable_RW_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Vector_Test
> Error: Vector_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Vector_Test Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Vector_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/WFMO_Reactor_Test
> Error: WFMO_Reactor_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/WFMO_Reactor_Test Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/WFMO_Reactor_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/INET_Addr_Test_IPV6
> Error: INET_Addr_Test_IPV6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/INET_Addr_Test_IPV6 Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/INET_Addr_Test_IPV6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Max_Default_Port_Test_IPV6
> Error: Max_Default_Port_Test_IPV6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Max_Default_Port_Test_IPV6 Time:1s
> Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Max_Default_Port_Test_IPV6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Multicast_Test_IPV6
> Error: Multicast_Test_IPV6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Multicast_Test_IPV6 Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Multicast_Test_IPV6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Multihomed_INET_Addr_Test_IPV6
> Error: Multihomed_INET_Addr_Test_IPV6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Multihomed_INET_Addr_Test_IPV6 Time:1s
> Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Multihomed_INET_Addr_Test_IPV6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Proactor_Test_IPV6
> Error: Proactor_Test_IPV6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Proactor_Test_IPV6 Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Proactor_Test_IPV6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/SOCK_Send_Recv_Test_IPV6
> Error: SOCK_Send_Recv_Test_IPV6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/SOCK_Send_Recv_Test_IPV6 Time:1s
> Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/SOCK_Send_Recv_Test_IPV6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/SOCK_Dgram_Test
> Error: SOCK_Dgram_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/SOCK_Dgram_Test Time:2s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/SOCK_Dgram_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/SOCK_Dgram_Bcast_Test
> Error: SOCK_Dgram_Bcast_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/SOCK_Dgram_Bcast_Test Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/SOCK_Dgram_Bcast_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/SOCK_SEQPACK_SCTP_Test
> Error: SOCK_SEQPACK_SCTP_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/SOCK_SEQPACK_SCTP_Test Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/SOCK_SEQPACK_SCTP_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/SOCK_Test_IPv6
> Error: SOCK_Test_IPv6 FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/SOCK_Test_IPv6 Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/SOCK_Test_IPv6.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Process_Strategy_Test
> Error: Process_Strategy_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Process_Strategy_Test Time:1s Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Process_Strategy_Test.log) is present
> auto_run_tests: tests/Recursive_Condition_Bug_Test
> Error: Recursive_Condition_Bug_Test FAILED with exit status 53
> 
> auto_run_tests_finished: test/Recursive_Condition_Bug_Test Time:1s
> Result:53
> Error: No log file (log/Recursive_Condition_Bug_Test.log) is present
> 
> 
> 
>     REPEAT BY:
> [What you did to get the error; include test program or session
> transcript if at all possible.  ]
> 
> Just compile ACE and run the tests.
> 
>     SAMPLE FIX/WORKAROUND:
> [If available ]
> 
> None.
> 
> 
> 
> Nitin Ramdenee
> Software Engineer
> MHP - MDMS 
> General Dynamics Canada 
> Phone : 613-356-4516
> 

0
Johnny
1/22/2007 3:23:02 PM
comp.soft-sys.ace 20326 articles. 1 followers. marlow.andrew (167) is leader. Post Follow

0 Replies
582 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 9

Reply:

Similar Artilces:

ACE Tests FAIL on Windows XP / Cygwin / gcc 3.4.4
ACE VERSION: 5.5 HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 2002 Service Pack 2 If on Windows based OS's, which version of WINSOCK do you use?: Version 3.10.0.103 TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): Cygwin 1.5.23-2 and gcc version 3.4.4 THE $ACE_ROOT/ace/config.h FILE [if you use a link to a platform- specific file, simply state which one]: #include "ace/config-cygwin32.h" THE $ACE_ROOT/include/makeinclude/platform_macros.GNU FILE [if you use a link to a platform-specific file, simply state which one (unless this isn't used in this case, e.g., with Microsoft Visual C++)]: include $(ACE_ROOT)/include/makeinclude/platform_cygwin32.GNU CONTENTS OF $ACE_ROOT/bin/MakeProjectCreator/config/default.features (used by MPC when you generate your own makefiles): AREA/CLASS/EXAMPLE AFFECTED: [What example failed? What module failed to compile?] ACE Tests compile and link fine but none of the tests execute properly. DOES THE PROBLEM AFFECT: COMPILATION? NO LINKING? NO On Unix systems, did you run make realclean first? EXECUTION? YES OTHER (please specify)? [Please indicate whether ACE, your application, or both are affected.] SYNOPSIS: [Brief description of the problem] All ...

RE: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3)
Hi Tom, > > > The "resolution" was to upgrade to ACE-5.4.3 or later, which has > > > code fixes to help with the newer compiler. Not sure how > much would > > > need to change, but you may be able to inspect the differences in > > > that part of the code wrt the newer ACE release to backport the > > > fixes. > > Thanks, I've downloaded and am building. Is ACE-5.4.3 the latest > > production release ? > > Well, the definition of "production release" for ACE is a bit murky > imho. P...

RE: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3) #2
Hi J.T., Right... The issue is a bit odd... Here's the check I added for ACE: dnl This check was added to work around a system-supplied header dnl (/usr/include/netinet/ip.h) that won't compile with Visual Age C++ dnl unless the _NO_BITFIELDS preprocessor macro is defined. The comments dnl there recommend use of _NO_BITFIELDS (and recode where needed to allow dnl that), but we won't just turn it on. Check to see if it's needed. Note dnl that this check is related to headers but done before we really know if dnl the header is present. Thus, if the bare compile fa...

RE: [ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3) #2
Hi Colm, Ok, thanks for that explanation. I solved this a different way for a similar problem that showed up with Visual Age C++ on AIX 5.2... When the 5.4.5 beta comes out, please try this again and hopefully no further workarounds will be needed. Thanks, -Steve -- Steve Huston, Riverace Corporation Adding Service to Open Source Software ACE book info at http://www.riverace.com/acebooks/ > -----Original Message----- > From: Colm McHugh [mailto:cmchugh@callixa.com] > Sent: We...

Re: [ace-users] ACE 5.4 on Redhat Linux Enterprise 3, 4 / Windows XP
Hi Mark, >> I'm simply trying to find out: should I expect difficulties using ACE 5.4 on >> Redhat Linux Enterprise 3? >> Actually it is a dual-port system, which also must run on Windows XP using >> Visual Studio .NET (7.1). >> >> On the "ACE-Ported-To" page only Redhad Linux 9.x was listed. Researching, >> I've found the differences to be: >> >> Redhat Enterprise 3 : Kernel 2.4.21, glibc 2.3.2-95.6 Recommended compiler >> gcc 3.2.3 >> Redhat 9.x : Kernel 2.4.20, glibc 2.3.2-11.9 Rec...

RE: [ace-users] ACE 5.4 on Redhat Linux Enterprise 3, 4 / Windows XP #2
I've been using most all of the pieces you mentioned below with the exception of the proactor framework on apps that have to cross compile between RHL4 (GCC) and XP (VC7) and I haven't had any problems. Everything's worked fine, so I can't really point out any problem areas to you. I think you'll be fine. D.J. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ace-users@cse.wustl.edu [mailto:owner-ace-users@cse.wustl.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Horowitz Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 9:02 AM To: ace-users@cs.wustl.edu Subject: [ace-users] ACE 5.4 on Redhat Linux Enterprise 3...

[ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.0 won't compile after GCC upgrade (3.3.3 -> 3.4.3)
Hi Tom, > Well, the definition of "production release" for ACE is a bit murky > imho. Please see http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE_wrappers/docs/ACE-development-process.html for the canonical definition of terms. If there's something unclear there please let me know and I'll fixit. > The developers on this list (almost) always recommend using the > latest package, which is typically labeled a "beta release". Right, the reason we do that is because the "latest release" (which is most commonly a beta release) is the on...

[ace-users] Re: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86
Hi Jin, >> The solaris 9/10 for sparc is not the same as solaris 9/10 for >> Intel X86,although it is almost free,and the SunStudio 9 (CC >> 5.6)for sparc is not the same as SunStudio 9(CC 5.6) for Intel X86. This is yet one more reason why you'll need to do the legwork on this. Please let us know what you find out. Thanks, Doug -- Dr. Douglas C. Schmidt, Professor TEL: (615) 343-8197 Electrical Engineering and Computer Science FAX: (615) 343-7440 Vanderbilt University WEB: www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ Nashvil...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86
Hi, >> ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 Thakns for using the PRF! >> HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: >> Solaris10 X86 We (i.e., the DOC groups at UCI/VU/WU) don't have Solaris running on an x86 box (yet). It would therefore be great if you could figure out what patches need to be applied so that ACE compiles properly on this platform. BTW, Kitty/Bala, weren't we planning on running Solaris on an AMD box at some point? Thanks, Doug >> TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: >> COMPIL...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Jin, Thanks for using the PRF. >> ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 >> >> HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: >> Solaris 10 x86 >> >> TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: >> COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): >> Sun Studio 9 (Sun CC 5.6) As we've mentioned several times now, we don't have this compiler installed yet on this hardware platform, so if you want things to be fixed soon I recommend you figure out what's going wrong and send us the patches. Otherwise, pl...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > Solaris10 X86 > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with unresolved symbols even if you get past this part. My $0.02. Thanks Bala > > Make: ...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Jin, >> I rebuild the ACE package according the instruction above,but get >> the same result. It doesn't look to me like you've added -DACE_HAS_X86_STAT_MACROS to the build-line as recommended by Johnny Willemsen. >> my platform_macros.GNU file has the following lines: >> >> templates = implicit >> include $(ACE_ROOT)/include/makeinclude/platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU >> >> When i rebuild the ACE library,get the following compile errors: >> $ make inline=0 -j 2 -k -f GNUmakefile.ACE >> ... >&...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > > Solaris10 X86 > > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with > unresolved > symbols even if you get past this pa...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
> > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a > not known forte > > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating > right now, for 4.2 > > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit This sounds good. > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > explicit is > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > should we patch > broken stuff. Just a thought? At least for ACE 5.5, Riverace supports the Forte compiler that requires explicit. After that, we can drop it....

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Johnny- > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a not known forte > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating right now, for 4.2 > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The explicit is not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why should we patch broken stuff. Just a thought? > Qinghuajin and other Forte 9 users, you can work around this by added the > following line to your platform_macros.GNU file. > templates = implicit This is until w...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Everyon: My SunBlade 150 is back up and available, and has a Sun CC license, though I don't have a lot of bandwidth to admin it. Bala know where it is and has the root password. I'll probably move it into the server room once I have a chance to talk to Dan about it, but I my be out of town this week. [dhinton@blade DRM]$ uname -a SunOS blade 5.9 Generic_112233-03 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100 Solaris [dhinton@blade DRM]$ CC -V CC: Forte Developer 7 C++ 5.4 2002/03/09 [dhinton@blade DRM]$ gcc --version gcc (GCC) 3.4.2 Copyright (C) 2004 Free Software Foundation, ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > > > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with > > > unresolved > > > symbols even if you get past this part. > > > > I missed the compiler version. But, Forte 8 gives output of > SUN C++ 5.5. Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a not known forte version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating right now, for 4.2 and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit Qinghuajin and other Forte...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi Steve, > > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > > explicit is > > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > > should we patch > > broken stuff. Just a thought? > > At least for ACE 5.5, Riverace supports the Forte compiler that > requires explicit. After that, we can drop it. Ok. Steve, could you maybe make clear with the build names which builds use explicit templates? Explicit templates in TAO are known to be broken at this moment. Johnny ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > > Ok, the problem is in platform_sunos5_sunc++.GNU, when a > not known forte > > version is found, it defaults to explicit. I am updating > right now, for 4.2 > > and 5.3 we default to explicit, for all others to implicit > > Is this necessary? I mean make it implicit by default. The > explicit is > not even supported, and has no chance to work cleanly. Why > should we patch > broken stuff. Just a thought? I have thought also about this, but maybe there are users around we don't know if. We can drop all this after x.5 is released, until that time, I just keep it there, just as we have a lot of other stuff that is probably broken. > > Qinghuajin and other Forte 9 users, you can work around > this by added the > > following line to your platform_macros.GNU file. > > templates = implicit > > This is until we release x.4.4., right? Yes, with x.4.4 this will be done correctly. Johnny ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
> Ok. Steve, could you maybe make clear with the build names > which builds use explicit templates? I'll try to get this clarified. > Explicit templates in TAO are known to be broken at this > moment. None of the tests at Riverace try to build TAO. -Steve ...

RE: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Hi, > >> It's almost up. There are some issues with installing software as > >> we don't have the media in a compatible form yet. We also don't > >> have Sun CC, and we need to purchase a licence if we need to > >> support Sun CC. > > Ok, that's fine - thanks for the update. I think some other folks > (e.g., LMCO ATL and Remedy) have Solaris 9/10 and Sun CC, so we may > not need to worry about running Sun CC on our machine. Johnny/Gautam, > can you folks please confirm/deny whether you've got Sun CC on Solar...

Re: [ace-users]: ACE 5.4.2 and ACE 5.4.3 compile failed on Solaris 9 x86 and Solaris 10 x86 #2
Johnny- > > > > ACE VERSION: 5.4.3 > > > > > > > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > > > > Solaris10 X86 > > > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > > > > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > > > > Compiler: SUN CC 5.6 > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > I don't think the DOC group supports this compiler anymore.. More > > particularly this compiler is buggy and you may land up with ...

[ace-bugs] RE: test program failed on running Static library of ACE 5.4 / 5.4.1 / 5.3.1 on AMD 64 Windows platform
Hi, Thanks for using the PRF form. Do I understand correctly you are using Windows 64 bit and the 64bit Microsoft compiler? This is a platform that is not tested yet and it seems that there are still some problems. Because such a simple program doesn't work maybe compiler/linker options could be the problem. We have here AMD64 with SuSE 92 Linux without problems, AMD64 with a normal windows xp and the normale vc71 compiler also doesn't have problems. Maybe you can investigate this and supply patches, or else look at http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/commercial-support.html for companies that deliver ACE/TAO support. We as Remedy IT can also solve this for you, see www.theaceorb.nl for our services. Regards, Johnny Willemsen Remedy IT Leeghwaterstraat 25 2811 DT Reeuwijk The Netherlands www.theaceorb.nl / www.remedy.nl > ACE VERSION: 5.4 / 5.4.1 / 5.3.1 > > HOST MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM: > Windows 2003 Server - AMD64 bit platform: > > TARGET MACHINE and OPERATING SYSTEM, if different from HOST: > COMPILER NAME AND VERSION (AND PATCHLEVEL): > Compiler Version 14.00.40310.23 for AMD64 using Microsoft Platform SDK > Linker Version 8.00.40310.23 using Microsoft Platform SDK > > CONTENTS OF $ACE_ROOT/ace/config.h [if you use a link to > a platform- > specific file, simply state which one]: > config.h > > CONTENTS OF > $A...

[ace-bugs] RE: test program failed on running Static library of ACE 5.4 / 5. 4.1 / 5.3.1 on AMD 64 Windows platform
Hi Johnny, Thanks for your response. Actually Mr. Dougs response to check with ACE version 5.4.2 worked for me and I am not getting this corruption issues with this version of ACE. There were few minor compilation issues with this release of ACE but they were quite easy to resolve. Regards, Meenakshi -----Original Message----- From: Johnny Willemsen [mailto:jwillemsen@remedy.nl] Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 11:46 PM To: Meenakshi Vohra; ace-bugs@cs.wustl.edu Subject: RE: test program failed on running Static library of ACE 5.4 / 5.4.1 / 5.3.1 on AMD 64 Windows platform ...

Web resources about - Re: [ace-users] ACE Tests FAIL on Windows XP / Cygwin / gcc 3.4.4 - comp.soft-sys.ace

Samsung Galaxy Ace 4 User Reviews
Samsung Galaxy Ace 4 reviews written by Phone Arena users. You can read the opinion of each user and how they rate the phone in 11 categories. ...

Samsung Galaxy Ace 3 official: iPhone-alike size for the new user
Samsung has revealed another in its Galaxy series, the Galaxy Ace 3, now targeting entry-level smartphone users who want a pocket-friendly 4-inch ...

Resources last updated: 3/5/2016 5:24:25 AM