On Wednesday 28 September 2005 1:47 pm, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > A few if(!xx) { return;} were needed and a few other tweaks.
>
> It might be better to use g_return_if_fail(xx) in this spot...OK, I'll do that. > I don't see why it would make it any more or less easy. You can apply > gdb in either case to the test app and it just works. I've never had > a problem debugging the test apps. But in src/engine I don't think > it's a big deal. That's why I did it, we wanted less guile in src/engine and I use these routines in cashutil where guile is not available. > > test-lots now runs without a segfault and all I got is this message: > > FAILURE engine-stuff test-engine-stuff.c:700 get_random_int_in_range > > failed but that doesn't cause the test to fail. > > I wonder why? I also wonder why this is failing? It's just the randomness, I've run the test several times in gnucash and cashutil trees and every once in a while one of the random test generators triggers this warning from test-engine-stuff.c. > > After I got it working, I reduced the number of iterations from 100 to 30 > > so that it took a more reasonable time to complete. > > Define "reasonable time"? Less than 10minutes on my P3 700MHz. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpmITgef7snY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
