On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, Marc Glisse wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, paul zimmermann wrote:
quite interesting. Why is gmp/mpn not tested in the head coverage?
It is tested. It appears as /var/tmp/lcov/gmp/mpn because it is a set of
symlinks created at build time.
sorry I missed that. I see some
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, paul zimmermann wrote:
quite interesting. Why is gmp/mpn not tested in the head coverage?
It is tested. It appears as /var/tmp/lcov/gmp/mpn because it is a set of
symlinks created at build time.
sorry I missed that. I see some of the files are not tested at all
> > quite interesting. Why is gmp/mpn not tested in the head coverage?
>
> It is tested. It appears as /var/tmp/lcov/gmp/mpn because it is a set of
> symlinks created at build time.
sorry I missed that. I see some of the files are not tested at all
(add_err3_n.c for example), and some have a
On Fri, 27 Apr 2018, paul zimmermann wrote:
https://gmplib.org/devel/lcov/shell/gmp/mini-gmp/mini-mpq.c.gcov.html
quite interesting. Why is gmp/mpn not tested in the head coverage?
It is tested. It appears as /var/tmp/lcov/gmp/mpn because it is a set of
symlinks created at build time.
--
Ciao Marc,
Il Gio, 26 Aprile 2018 4:40 pm, Marc Glisse ha scritto:
> Marco had a mini-mpq that seemed to be in a working state. I guess it is
> missing tests, so too much work for 6.2. Is that a correct interpretation
> of the status?
I pushed it, so that you can see the status ;-)
I did not
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
I'd suggest to make a 6.2 release of pretty much what we have today.
Marco had a mini-mpq that seemed to be in a working state. I guess it is
missing tests, so too much work for 6.2. Is that a correct interpretation
of the status?
(I am trying
Ciao,
Il Mer, 4 Aprile 2018 9:00 am, Niels Möller ha scritto:
> t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
>> I'd suggest to make a 6.2 release of pretty much what we have today.
>
> Sounds good to me. Looking through my entries in ChangeLog, most
> interesting change was the merge of my changes
> I'd like to move to C99 soon.
Nice. Any particular C99 features you'd like to use? Some of the
features (from the list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99):
I am aware of that there are no compelling features provided with C99,
and that the ones at all relevant to us will not bring new
t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
> I'd like to move to C99 soon.
Nice. Any particular C99 features you'd like to use? Some of the
features (from the list on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99):
* Better floating point support (e.g., standardized float.h).
* Standard inline (with
