On Fri, 2020-06-05 at 18:23 +, Pip Cet via Gcc-patches wrote:
> David Malcolm writes:
>
> > On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 18:51 +, Pip Cet wrote:
> > > How's this?
> >
> > Thanks; looks good to me. Hopefully this doesn't clash with Tom's
> > patch.
>
> It doesn't, but I hope I got the commit m
David Malcolm writes:
> On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 18:51 +, Pip Cet wrote:
>> How's this?
>
> Thanks; looks good to me. Hopefully this doesn't clash with Tom's
> patch.
It doesn't, but I hope I got the commit message right this time.
(I don't have git access, so if someone could commit this if
On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 18:51 +, Pip Cet wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:06 PM David Malcolm
> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 13:40 +, Pip Cet via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > > I think we should just omit the triangle inequality test from the
> > > self-test, as in the attached patch.
> >
>
On Mon, 2020-06-01 at 14:11 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > Did the full DejaGnu testsuite get run? There are a lot of tests
> > in it
> > that make use of this code.
>
> I did "make check" and only saw some XFAILs.
>
> Here's v2 of the patch, which I think addresses your comments. I did
> not add
> Did the full DejaGnu testsuite get run? There are a lot of tests in it
> that make use of this code.
I did "make check" and only saw some XFAILs.
Here's v2 of the patch, which I think addresses your comments. I did
not add a new test of get_edit_distance, because as I mentioned earlier,
an ex
> "David" == David Malcolm writes:
>> I tested this using the self-tests. A new self-test is also
>> included.
> Did the full DejaGnu testsuite get run? There are a lot of tests in it
> that make use of this code.
I didn't try it, but I can.
> The patch should probably update the leading
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:06 PM David Malcolm wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 13:40 +, Pip Cet via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > I think we should just omit the triangle inequality test from the
> > self-test, as in the attached patch.
>
> I like the idea,
Thanks!
> but can you update the comment so
On Sat, 2020-05-30 at 13:40 +, Pip Cet via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:21 PM Pip Cet wrote:
> > IIRC, minimum string alignment does not satisfy the triangle
> > inequality anyway, so test_metric_conditions should probably not
> > pretend to test it...
>
> I did remember cor
On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 10:54 -0600, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I got this error message when editing gcc and recompiling:
>
> ../../gcc/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/decl.c:7714:39: error:
> ‘DWARF_GNAT_ENCODINGS_all’ was not declared in this scope; did you
> mean ‘DWARF_GNAT_ENCODINGS_GDB’?
> 7714 | = debug
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:21 PM Pip Cet wrote:
> IIRC, minimum string alignment does not satisfy the triangle
> inequality anyway, so test_metric_conditions should probably not
> pretend to test it...
I did remember correctly, though of course that should have been
"optimal string alignment" :-).
On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 6:02 PM Tom Tromey wrote:
> This patch changes gcc's spell checker to prefer simple case changes
> when possible.
>
> I tested this using the self-tests. A new self-test is also included.
I think that's great, but it should be mentioned in the comment that
the distance fu
11 matches
Mail list logo
