On Saturday, 2 July 2016 at 00:38:56 UTC, Stefan Koch wrote:
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 at 00:34:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/1/2016 1:29 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Do you want to see coverage for code executed at CTFE ?
It's not necessary since CTFE code can all be executed at
runtime, and
On Saturday, 2 July 2016 at 00:34:05 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 7/1/2016 1:29 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Do you want to see coverage for code executed at CTFE ?
It's not necessary since CTFE code can all be executed at
runtime, and coverage tested that way.
Fair enough :)
execpt for code
On 7/1/2016 1:29 PM, Stefan Koch wrote:
Do you want to see coverage for code executed at CTFE ?
It's not necessary since CTFE code can all be executed at runtime, and coverage
tested that way.
there is no need in that, absolutely. CTFE is undebugabble anyway
(and pragma(msg) not really helps -- i'm saying that as a fan of
printf debugger), unittesting it is silly and so on.
after all, as CTFE *should* behave the same if it is done in
runtime, one can always test and debug CTFE code
Hi,
Exactly as per title.
Do you want to see coverage for code executed at CTFE ?
I ask because it is slightly tricky to support this and it needs
to be factored in early in design.
And please off-topic or thread hijacking this time.
Thanks!
