On 4/14/2012 2:14 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 04/14/2012 10:06 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 3:03 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> On 04/13/2012 12:00 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> Also, you may want to
>> change Mils2iu to u
On 04/14/2012 10:06 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 3:03 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 04/13/2012 12:00 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Also, you may want to
> change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
>>
On 4/13/2012 5:12 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>
>> wxRound may be overkill but it does one important thing that will become
>> apparent when I commit the code that scales the PCB_SCREEN zoom factors
>> to work properly with nanometer internal units. In debug builds,
>> wxRound tests if the floatin
On 4/13/2012 3:29 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>
> wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like overkill to me.
>
>> wxRound may be overkill
>>
>> I did not say it was overkill. I said it can be making an unnecessary
>> function call.
>
>
> Well I guess I did say it was overkill, shit.
>
On 4/13/2012 3:24 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 02:03 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> On 04/13/2012 12:00 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> Also, you may want to
> change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
>>
On 4/13/2012 3:03 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 12:00 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
Also, you may want to
change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
>>> wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like overk
> wxRound may be overkill but it does one important thing that will become
> apparent when I commit the code that scales the PCB_SCREEN zoom factors
> to work properly with nanometer internal units. In debug builds,
> wxRound tests if the floating point result is within INT_MIN and INT_MAX
> and
wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like overkill to me.
> wxRound may be overkill
>
> I did not say it was overkill. I said it can be making an unnecessary
> function call.
Well I guess I did say it was overkill, shit.
But you should listen to what I mean, not what I say!
:)
Ple
On 04/13/2012 02:03 PM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 12:00 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
Also, you may want to
change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
>>> wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like ove
On 04/13/2012 12:00 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> Also, you may want to
>>> change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
>> wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like overkill to me.
>> Since the objective is to produce an
On 4/13/2012 10:04 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>> Also, you may want to
>> change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
>
> wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like overkill to me.
> Since the objective is to produce an integer, not a double, there is an
> easier way t
> Also, you may want to
> change Mils2iu to use wxRound() so it will work for negative values.
wxRound()'s use of C lib's round() seems like overkill to me.
Since the objective is to produce an integer, not a double, there is an easier
way that
has the possibility of letting the compiler do some
On 04/11/2012 10:23 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 11:00 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
>> Le 11/04/2012 16:19, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit :
>>> On 4/11/2012 6:47 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
Le 10/04/2012 18:31, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
> I updated this to support the PCBNEW na
On 4/11/2012 11:00 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
> Le 11/04/2012 16:19, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit :
>> On 4/11/2012 6:47 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
>>> Le 10/04/2012 18:31, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
Might have broken something on th
Le 11/04/2012 16:19, Wayne Stambaugh a écrit :
On 4/11/2012 6:47 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
Le 10/04/2012 18:31, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
Might have broken something on the non-nanometer build, did not test
that.
Also, Jean-Pierre,
I th
On 04/11/2012 05:47 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
> Le 10/04/2012 18:31, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
>> I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
>>
>> Might have broken something on the non-nanometer build, did not test that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, Jean-Pierre,
>>
>> I think there is still some i
On 4/11/2012 6:47 AM, jean-pierre charras wrote:
> Le 10/04/2012 18:31, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
>> I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
>>
>> Might have broken something on the non-nanometer build, did not test
>> that.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, Jean-Pierre,
>>
>> I think there is still some
Le 10/04/2012 18:31, Dick Hollenbeck a écrit :
I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
Might have broken something on the non-nanometer build, did not test that.
Also, Jean-Pierre,
I think there is still some incompatibility in the zone hatches. There may be
too many of
them being
On 10 April 2012 17:31, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
>
> Might have broken something on the non-nanometer build, did not test that.
>
>
>
> Also, Jean-Pierre,
>
> I think there is still some incompatibility in the zone hatches. There may
> be too many
I updated this to support the PCBNEW nanometers.
Might have broken something on the non-nanometer build, did not test that.
Also, Jean-Pierre,
I think there is still some incompatibility in the zone hatches. There may be
too many of
them being constructed.
Might want to instrument the perim
20 matches
Mail list logo
