Hi,
Tim Shen ha scritto:
>Yes I think we should keep secret, because the standard doesn't
>specify it. They only way to publish the switch to user is making a
>library extension(is that true?), but there's no obvious benefit to do
>that(is that true? I shall be humble).
Well, the standard does
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Before figuring out a fully general solution, I would anyway add a testcase
> which manually switches the executor and tests for the problem. More elegant
> would be a testcase which due to its nature automatically leads to an
> executor switc
Forgot...
But in
>principle yes, since we deliver two, and the users have a way to choose
>
>which one they want (X) we should add to the testsuite 2 copies of each
>
>test which doesn't use br and test both executors.
In practice, of course, we could also avoid the 2 physical copies. For examp
Hi,
On 10/03/2013 10:55 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
Seems trivial enough, Ok.
Committed.
PS: I suppose isn't easy to prepare a testcase which would exercise those
lines?
Telling the truth, this bug *is* revealed by rerunning testcases with
the n
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Seems trivial enough, Ok.
Committed.
> PS: I suppose isn't easy to prepare a testcase which would exercise those
> lines?
Telling the truth, this bug *is* revealed by rerunning testcases with
the non-default DFS matcher. Since the other mat
On 10/03/2013 07:33 PM, Tim Shen wrote:
Tested under -m32, -m64, however didn't do a bootstrap. Is that OK?
Seems trivial enough, Ok.
Thanks,
Paolo
PS: I suppose isn't easy to prepare a testcase which would exercise
those lines?
