[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing
From: |
Felix Salfelder |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing |
Date: |
Mon, 9 Feb 2015 21:54:15 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
On Mon, Feb 09, 2015 at 02:00:02PM -0500, al davis wrote:
> So I made another test case that adds a node. gnucap-uf then
> gave wrong answers because of a mismatch because the subcircuit
> wasn't remapped. I have some ideas, but for now losing the
> probes is less of a problem than the alternatives.
thanks for the analysis. the frozen flag, that i forgot about. this once
amended a related issue. but sure, it's just a hack :(. i'll look into
your new test some time.
> Not really surprising. autotools does a lot, all mixed up, in a
> very complex way that is impossible to test adequately.
yes. it would still be good to have the useful fraction of this lot on
our side. i don't believe in miracles, like an implementation without
autotools. it's a bit sad that you want to get rid of it before we have
a replacement -- no matter if it exists.
similarly: i sometimes use gcc to compile stuff. i often use processors
to compute something. there's no way to test everything, even if such
practice might reveal some bugs.
cheers
felix
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing, al davis, 2015/02/09
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing, al davis, 2015/02/09
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing,
Felix Salfelder <=
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing, al davis, 2015/02/09
- [Gnucap-devel] Makefiles again, Felix Salfelder, 2015/02/09
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] Makefiles again, al davis, 2015/02/09
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] Makefiles again, Felix Salfelder, 2015/02/10
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] Makefiles again, Felix Salfelder, 2015/02/10
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing, Felix Salfelder, 2015/02/10
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing, al davis, 2015/02/13
- Re: [Gnucap-devel] testing, Felix Salfelder, 2015/02/13