ram to errors + summary, and I
>> > could achieve that either by modifying Yaffut itself or by filtering
>> > the output through a script.
>
> Go wild. There are only 2 (?) small flower lib files that have tests,
> so I don't think this merits much attention.
>
>> My p
ould achieve that either by modifying Yaffut itself or by filtering
> > the output through a script.
Go wild. There are only 2 (?) small flower lib files that have tests,
so I don't think this merits much attention.
> My personal opinion for the amount of respect is: none. I didn't even
&
Dan Eble writes:
> What level of respect should I maintain for the integrity of
> flower/include/yaffut.h? I think it would be nice to limit the
> default output of the unit test program to errors + summary, and I
> could achieve that either by modifying Yaffut itself or
What level of respect should I maintain for the integrity of
flower/include/yaffut.h? I think it would be nice to limit the default output
of the unit test program to errors + summary, and I could achieve that either
by modifying Yaffut itself or by filtering the output through a script
,
I can see that you removed demangling, and you list an alternative:
c++filt -t.
Issue 1875.
Why do you prefer using c++filt over demangling?
I prefer c++filt over a crash at link time.
Remember that yaffut is a cross platform test suite, are things
like c++filt available for MSVC
On 2011-11-11 09:31, d...@gnu.org wrote:
Remember that yaffut is a cross platform test suite, are things
like c++filt available for MSVC, for example?
Huh? What concern are the platforms yaffut runs on? Don't tell me that
Lilypond is one of its main distribution points. If it is, so much
Reinhold Kainhofer reinh...@fam.tuwien.ac.at writes:
On 2011-11-11 09:31, d...@gnu.org wrote:
Remember that yaffut is a cross platform test suite, are things
like c++filt available for MSVC, for example?
Huh? What concern are the platforms yaffut runs on? Don't tell me that
Lilypond
David Kastrup writes:
Issue 1875.
Ah, that's the bit I missed. Just an artifact of our non-integrated
SCM/Bug-tracker/Patch tracker.
The patch in its current state does not affect a working test suite, and
it lets make check finish with slightly less readable output when
cxxabi.h breaks
? And that the biggest cause of not having
stable releases are regressions? And that the best time to fix
regressions are *before* they happen? And that code reviews have
been found to be the best single factor for catching bugs? And
that nobody (apart from maybe you) actually knows what yaffut is
doing
are
*before* they happen? And that code reviews have been found to be the
best single factor for catching bugs? And that nobody (apart from
maybe you) actually knows what yaffut is doing or how it works?
If nobody knows that it does, then there is nobody else going to give a
useful review. Case
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 06:15:04PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Graham Percival gra...@percival-music.ca writes:
(the below is NOT directed at David, who is an absolutely
fantastic developer)
...
this misbegotten hobby horse not belonging in Lilypond.
I agree.
Mind you, it is not like I
Passes make and no reg test diffs
james
http://codereview.appspot.com/5375051/
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
that you removed demangling, and you list an alternative:
c++filt -t.
Why do you prefer using c++filt over demangling?
Remember that yaffut is a cross platform test suite, are things
like c++filt available for MSVC, for example?
but alas, the stepmake stuff is so totally inscrutable that I
have no idea
13 matches
Mail list logo
