On 6/9/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 06/09/2011 01:30 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 6/9/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2011 01:54 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
On 6/6/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 11:14 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> The PPH project has tests that comp
On 06/09/2011 01:30 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 6/9/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 06/08/2011 01:54 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> On 6/6/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
On 06/03/2011 11:14 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> The PPH project has tests that compile two different ways, and
> then c
On 6/9/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 06/08/2011 01:54 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> On 6/6/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2011 11:14 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
The PPH project has tests that compile two different ways, and
then compare the assembly. If either of the compiles fails
On 06/08/2011 01:54 PM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> On 6/6/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
>> On 06/03/2011 11:14 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>>> The PPH project has tests that compile two different ways, and
>>> then compare the assembly. If either of the compiles fails, the
>>> comparison will fail. We'd l
On 6/6/11, Janis Johnson wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 11:14 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
>> The PPH project has tests that compile two different ways, and
>> then compare the assembly. If either of the compiles fails, the
>> comparison will fail. We'd like to simply not run the comparison.
>>
>> We curre
On 06/03/2011 11:14 AM, Lawrence Crowl wrote:
> The PPH project has tests that compile two different ways, and
> then compare the assembly. If either of the compiles fails, the
> comparison will fail. We'd like to simply not run the comparison.
>
> We currently have:
>
> set have_errs [llength
Lawrence Crowl writes:
> The PPH project has tests that compile two different ways, and
> then compare the assembly. If either of the compiles fails, the
> comparison will fail. We'd like to simply not run the comparison.
>
> We currently have:
>
> set have_errs [llength [grep $test "{\[ \t\]\+
