Hello all, I have a proposed pull request that fixes the remaining cases of the badval configuration <https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdl/pull/190>. I'd like if y'all could review it.
One thing to note is that the comparison used for checking badvalues here must also take into consideration NaN, since NAN == NAN is false. Are there any abstractions in the PDL codebase that can help with this "bitwise equality" ( == or !finite(...) ) as opposed to just "numeric equality" (==). I will squash it before merging. Cheers, - Zaki Mughal On 2016-06-27 at 21:53:57 -0600, Craig DeForest wrote: > Aw crud. I will have a look. Thanks! > > (Mobile) > > > > On Jun 27, 2016, at 8:58 PM, Derek Lamb <de...@boulder.swri.edu> wrote: > > > > FWIW the commit d12d7b1 "fix skip count for no-badvals case" (which I take > > to be the end of the line on this topic, since it has been merged into > > master) is not passing test t/constructor.t when BADVAL_USENAN and/or > > BADVAL_PER_PDL is true: see > > https://travis-ci.org/PDLPorters/pdl/builds/137405085. Might be worth > > taking a look. > > > > Derek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape _______________________________________________ pdl-devel mailing list pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel
