Hi all, I have done further investigation into SF#390 on the sf390 branch <https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdl/pull/128>.
I rewrote the BadCode PP code in `ops.pd` specifically for comparison operators (==, >, <, etc.) since, with the previous code, the semantics for what to do when only one of the values is bad is unclear under the per-PDL badvalues configuration. The bug is now fixed in builds that use the BADVAL_PER_PDL option <https://travis-ci.org/PDLPorters/pdl/builds/69517571>. In order to fix it for the other badval options, I need some input. I currently check the following in a switch[^1] switch( ( ($ISBAD(a())) << 1 ) | ($ISBAD(b())) ) in order to handle all the cases where each operand might be bad. Would checking the badflag of each operand as well make sense? The line would then become: switch( ( ( $ISBAD(a()) & $ISPDLSTATEBAD(a()) ) << 1 ) | ( ( $ISBAD(b()) & $ISPDLSTATEBAD(b()) ) ) ) so that I would check both the badflag and the badvalue for each operand. I just want to make sure I'm understanding the semantics correctly. Cheers, - Zaki [^1]: <https://github.com/PDLPorters/pdl/pull/128/files#diff-621e73c99459a6921891a9de81d5818aR106> P.S. Exciting news! I think I may have found a way to test on Windows automatically just like Travis-CI. I'd like to start that after the split. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud. GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business. Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today. https://www.gigenetcloud.com/ _______________________________________________ pdl-devel mailing list pdl-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pdl-devel
