On Fri, 14 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:05PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote:
On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:45:47AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
>>>>> This can be useful in known-broken scenarios like miscompilation
>>>>> by legacy compilers and similar.
>>>>> Yeah, one could come up with more elaborate solutions, but this already
>>>>> works and we have cases where it could be useful right away...
>>>>This looks like a good improvement over the current situation, thanks!
>>>>I guess this should be included in the output sent to fate as well
>>>>(and shown there in some way)? Initially I guess one can add it to
>>>It shows up in the configure line; do you want it shown somewhere else?
>>>And yeah, I'd probably add it to the comments field of my own FATE
>>>instances if I used the option.
>>I thought of a separate column next to the comments (which is already
>>used for other things in many setups), but plugging it into the comments
>>probably is good for the first step.
>In any case, if I was unclear, this patch LGTM.
Any further comments on this, or interest in pushing it? I'd like to take it
I was kinda waiting for Janne to make a comment since I spoke with him
about this idea in Berlin. But I guess this is good to go.
Ah, I see.
I had one idea how to improve/change this: I could automatically add the
"fate-" prefix to the test name to shorten the command line. So
What would you prefer?
That'd probably be useful.
libav-devel mailing list