chiaki ISHIKAWA writes:
> (2014/04/07 10:16), Karl Tomlinson wrote:
>> because enumeration types may hold values that don't match any of
>> their enumerator values.
>
> Is this allowed by C (or C++) specification today?
It is allowed in N3242. I think the relevant sections are
5.2.9 Static cast
(2014/04/07 10:16), Karl Tomlinson wrote:
because enumeration types may hold values that don't match any of
their enumerator values.
Is this allowed by C (or C++) specification today?
[Yes, I know the compiler in the past did not care much.]
I thought the stricter warnings of compilers today i
On 04/04/14 03:44 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-04-04, 3:12 PM, L. David Baron wrote:
Are you talking about newly-added tests, or tests that have been
passing for a long time and recently started failing?
In the latter case, the burden should fall on the regressing patch,
and the regressing
On 06/04/14 08:59 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Note that is only accurate to a certain point. There are other things which
we can do to guesswork our way out of the situation for Autoland, but of
course they're resource/time intensive (basically
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 11:58:28 -0700 (PDT), jmaher wrote:
> Two exceptions:
> 2) When we are bringing a new platform online (Android 2.3, b2g, etc.) many
> tests will need to be disabled prior to getting the tests on tbpl.
It makes sense to disable some tests so that others can run.
I assume bugs
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:49:45 -0700 (PDT), jmaher wrote:
>> overburdened in other ways (e.g., reviews). the burden
>> needs to be placed on the regressing change rather than the original
>> author of the test.
>
> I am open to ideas to help figure out the offending changes. My
> understanding is m
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:03:57 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Karl Tomlinson
>> wrote:
>>> Does WARNINGS_AS_ERRORS make the default:MOZ_CRASH()
>>> unnecessary?
>>
>> No, because it's possible that the thing you're testing is not
>> actually a valid enum value, su
On 06 April 2014 14:58:24, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
On 2014-04-06, 8:59 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
Is there any reason in principle that we couldn't have the test runner
automatically rerun tests with known intermittent failures a few
times, and let the test pass if it passes a few times in a row after
On 2014-04-06, 8:59 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
Note that is only accurate to a certain point. There are other things which
we can do to guesswork our way out of the situation for Autoland, but of
course they're resource/time intensive (basical
On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Note that is only accurate to a certain point. There are other things which
> we can do to guesswork our way out of the situation for Autoland, but of
> course they're resource/time intensive (basically running orange tests over
> and over a
Alex Jordan於 2014年4月6日星期日UTC+8下午1時23分04秒寫道：
> On Apr 5, 2014 6:55 AM, "Paul" wrote:
>
> > That's why I tried to obtain root privileges on Nightly. If there is
>
> another way to make this work without gaining root permission, that will be
>
> great.
>
> The correct way to accomplish something
11 matches
Mail list logo
