Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-26 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:12:25 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda : > On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Le 26/04/2022 ?? 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit : > > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > >>>I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-26 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 03:35:30PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Le 26/04/2022 ?? 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit : > >On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > >>>I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'. > > > >There is subtlety here, which

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-26 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 26/04/2022 à 14:58, Pavel Sanda a écrit : On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'. There is subtlety here, which might be the source of confusion. The standard does not tell you long long needs

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-26 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 02:28:08PM +0200, Pavel Sanda wrote: > > I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'. There is subtlety here, which might be the source of confusion. The standard does not tell you long long needs to be *implemented* by 64bits. It just tells

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-26 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 09:35:46PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Can you explain to me what is the reason for "weakly opposing" it? > > Yes, the code does no harm, only gave me a guaranty. > I read somewhere that 64 bit for long long was a 'should' and not a 'must'. Nope, we are in the 'must' re

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-25 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:11:18 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda : > On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:10:26AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:45:13 +0200 > > schrieb Pavel Sanda : > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:56:20PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > > Try to use > > > > $ ly

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-25 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:10:26AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:45:13 +0200 > schrieb Pavel Sanda : > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:56:20PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > Try to use > > > $ lyx -dbg > > > it should display > > > ... > > > 4294967296 debug ... > >

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-25 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Sun, 24 Apr 2022 21:45:13 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda : > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:56:20PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Try to use > > $ lyx -dbg > > it should display > > ... > > 4294967296 debug ... > > then 1L would be correct. > > Seems to be correct now. > > > > > +// M

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-24 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 01:56:20PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Try to use > $ lyx -dbg > it should display > ... > 4294967296 debug ... > then 1L would be correct. Seems to be correct now. > > > +// Make sure at compile time that sizeof(unsigned long long) >= 8 > > > +typedef

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-22 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:56:20 +0200 schrieb Kornel Benko : > then 1L would be correct. > We may need 1ULL here. Kornel -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel pgpQQ3tmnTSXa.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP -- ly

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-22 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Fri, 22 Apr 2022 13:40:19 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda : > On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:28:06PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > Am Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:38:23 +0200 > > schrieb Pavel Sanda : > > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > > Do you have a bette

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-22 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 12:28:06PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > Am Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:38:23 +0200 > schrieb Pavel Sanda : > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > > Do you have a better idea? > > > > long long ? > > Pavel > > Ok, is the attached working

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-22 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2022 15:38:23 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda : > On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > > Do you have a better idea? > > long long ? > Pavel Ok, is the attached working for you? Kornel -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http:

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-21 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 02:53:37PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote: > Do you have a better idea? long long ? Pavel -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-devel@lists.lyx.org http://lists.lyx.org/mailman/listinfo/lyx-devel

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-21 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Thu, 21 Apr 2022 14:45:39 +0200 schrieb Pavel Sanda : > On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:12:06AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > > I am not sure that we need a verbose level yet. What about > > > -dbg find => FINDSHORT > > > -dbg find --verbose => FIND > > > > > > JMarc > > > > I propose to do it

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-21 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 21/04/2022 à 14:45, Pavel Sanda a écrit : Well, not that small change. On some gcc versions you need to include cstdint header to have uint64_t available (AFAIK we don't use uint64_t anywhere else in the code). Right. And including in debug.h which is used everywhere is not great idea.

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-21 Thread Pavel Sanda
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 11:12:06AM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > I am not sure that we need a verbose level yet. What about > > -dbg find => FINDSHORT > > -dbg find --verbose => FIND > > > > JMarc > > I propose to do it as a next step. Better not too many changes at once IMO. make[5]: Entering

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Tue, 19 Apr 2022 13:05:37 +0200 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 19/04/2022 à 11:07, Kornel Benko a écrit : > >> Besides the discussion of FINDSHORT, I do not think that size_t is a > >> good type, since the only guarantee is that it is more than 16 bits > >> (even on 32bit architectures, it

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 19/04/2022 à 11:12, Kornel Benko a écrit : I am not sure that we need a verbose level yet. What about -dbg find => FINDSHORT -dbg find --verbose => FIND JMarc I propose to do it as a next step. Better not too many changes at once IMO. As you prefer. JMarc -- lyx-devel mailing list lyx-de

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 19/04/2022 à 11:07, Kornel Benko a écrit : Besides the discussion of FINDSHORT, I do not think that size_t is a good type, since the only guarantee is that it is more than 16 bits (even on 32bit architectures, it is probably 32 bits). int64_t is probably what you are after. Yes. I had the (a

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:53:40 +0200 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 19/04/2022 à 10:08, Kornel Benko a écrit : > >> We do > >> currently have a "--verbose" but what I mean is to change "--verbose" to > >> accept a "" argument that determines how verbose the debug output > >> is. So this way,

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Tue, 19 Apr 2022 10:51:14 +0200 schrieb Jean-Marc Lasgouttes : > Le 18/04/2022 à 12:21, Kornel Benko a écrit : > > The output while debugging findadv is overwhelming, but sometimes > > one needs only a small subset. Therefore the addition of -dbg findshort. > > Besides the discussion of FIND

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 19/04/2022 à 10:08, Kornel Benko a écrit : We do currently have a "--verbose" but what I mean is to change "--verbose" to accept a "" argument that determines how verbose the debug output is. So this way, "lyx --debug find --verbose 1" would give the same output as "FIND", and "lyx --debug f

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
Le 18/04/2022 à 12:21, Kornel Benko a écrit : The output while debugging findadv is overwhelming, but sometimes one needs only a small subset. Therefore the addition of -dbg findshort. Besides the discussion of FINDSHORT, I do not think that size_t is a good type, since the only guarantee is t

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-19 Thread Kornel Benko
Am Mon, 18 Apr 2022 21:22:41 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak : > On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:21:40PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > > The output while debugging findadv is overwhelming, but sometimes > > one needs only a small subset. Therefore the addition of -dbg findshort. > > > > Also it would be

Re: Expand debug to contain more than 31 cases

2022-04-18 Thread Scott Kostyshak
On Mon, Apr 18, 2022 at 12:21:40PM +0200, Kornel Benko wrote: > The output while debugging findadv is overwhelming, but sometimes > one needs only a small subset. Therefore the addition of -dbg findshort. > > Also it would be possible to use constructions like > LYXERR(Debug::FIND|Debug::FIN