The comment in this test: > [Error matching program output for expressions/bradc/bitopsVsEqualtyPrec]
shows that I'm more forgetful than I'd like to admit: I guess we did know that C's precedence was broken at some point but decided to stick with it anyway. > [Error matching program output for > performance/compiler/bradc/compSampler-timecomp] > [Error matching program output for > trivial/deitz/test_all_precedence_levels_in_a_single_expression] > [Error matching program output for trivial/shannon/compSampler] All of these look as though they're tests that only use precedence to make sure precedence works as expected, so I don't see any issues here. Once we have a proposed change, I'd suggest sending it out to chapel-users (and possibly chapel-education) to see if there's any uproar outside of the developer community. > While I am here though, it seems strange to me that .. binds so > loosely (above == ): The commit message that went with that bitopsVsEqualityPrec suggested that '..' had been dropped in without a lot of deep thought. I'm not worried about ranges of bools. So if there aren't any surprises in your testing, improving that seems good as well. -Brad ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Chapel-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-developers
