| 1 |
On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 21:04 +0200, Bardur Arantsson wrote: |
| 2 |
> I can't be bothered to open up a bug report, but I've attached a trivial |
| 3 |
> patch. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
... |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> I think the logic in there still looks suspect though: AFAICT there may |
| 8 |
> be other scenarios than the one I accidentally tried where 'unpack' may |
| 9 |
> remain True while unpack_cmd does not get set to anything meaningful. |
| 10 |
> With my patch this will result in the new error message as well -- I'm |
| 11 |
> not sure how appropriate that is. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Anyway, the patch certainly certainly shouldn't cause any regressions. |
| 14 |
> The new message only triggers when an undefined variable would be |
| 15 |
> accessed anyway. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'll have to test it. It sure would be nice if there were a bug report |
| 18 |
for this so that I didn't lose this email in all of my pre-release |
| 19 |
hustle. Maybe I'll happen to remember this email when I get to doing |
| 20 |
catalyst testing again. Who knows... |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 24 |
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead |
| 25 |
x86 Architecture Team |
| 26 |
Games - Developer |
| 27 |
Gentoo Linux |
Archives