view etc/toolbar/compile-up.xpm @ 5370:4c4b96b13f70

Address the easy test failures in tests/automated. src/ChangeLog addition: 2011-03-11 Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> * bytecode.c (optimize_byte_code): Only transform assignments to keywords to Bdiscard if NEED_TO_HANDLE_21_4_CODE is turned on. Cf. similar code in reject_constant_symbols(). tests/ChangeLog addition: 2011-03-11 Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net> * automated/byte-compiler-tests.el: (defconst :foo 1) now gives a warning when byte-compiled, check for that. (setq :foo 1) now errors with interpreted code, but succeeds with byte-compiled code; check for the former, wrap a Known-Bug-Expect-Failure around a check for the error in the latter case, we can't yet remove this behaviour while we're using packages compiled by 21.4. * automated/lisp-tests.el (wrong-type-argument): Integer zero is a valid argument to #'substring-no-properties, use Assert not Check-Error for it. Check some other aspects of the functionality of #'substring-no-properties in passing.
author Aidan Kehoe <kehoea@parhasard.net>
date Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:40:01 +0000
parents 376386a54a3c
children 7910031dd78a
line wrap: on
line source

/* XPM */
static char * makefile[] = {
"28 28 6 1",
"X	c Gray75 s backgroundToolBarColor",
"o	c black",
"O	c white",
"+	c Gray40",
"@	c Gray90",
"#	c white",
"XXXXXXXXXoooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXoooOoooXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXo++o++oXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXoo+ooo+ooXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXo++o++++oXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXoo++o++ooXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXo+++++ooooXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXooo+oooo@oXXoXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXooo@o@@@oo@oXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXo@@@@@@@@@@ooXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXXo@@@ooo@@@oXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXXo@@o@o#o@@oXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXoo@@o@o###o@@ooXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXo@@@oo####o@@@oXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXooo@o@o###o@oooXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXXo@@o@o#o@@oXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXXo@@@ooo@@@oXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXo@@@@@@@@@@@oXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXoo@oo@@oooooXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXoooXooo@@oXXoXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXo++o++ooooXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXoo+ooo+ooXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXo++o++++oXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXoo++o++ooXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXo+++++oXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXooo+oooXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXoooXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX",
"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX"};