Patchy the autobot says: passes tests.
What tests are run by patchy?
- compilation?
- regressions?
Frédéric
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
- Original Message -
From: Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org
To: lilypond-devel@gnu.org
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 9:31 AM
Subject: What tests are run by patchy?
Patchy the autobot says: passes tests.
What tests are run by patchy?
- compilation?
- regressions?
Frédéric
Frederic
2013/8/23 Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org
Patchy the autobot says: passes tests.
What tests are run by patchy?
- compilation?
- regressions?
Frédéric
___
lilypond-devel mailing list
lilypond-devel@gnu.org
https
it does a make a make check (reg test comparison) and by default a full make
doc.
Good point. I am preparing a large patch to replace 'string' by 'const
string' where it makes sense (to avoid string copy when possible) and
although I am going to run make check my-self before submitting, I am
Frederic
On 23 August 2013 10:10, Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org wrote:
it does a make a make check (reg test comparison) and by default a full
make
doc.
Good point. I am preparing a large patch to replace 'string' by 'const
string' where it makes sense (to avoid string copy when
Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org writes:
it does a make a make check (reg test comparison) and by default a full make
doc.
Good point. I am preparing a large patch to replace 'string' by 'const
string' where it makes sense (to avoid string copy when possible) and
although I am going to
I would at least normally expect that you do a 'make' to see that it builds
against current tree - sometimes on the morning of the PATCH countdown, that
is hard because someone may push a patch and the new tree is merged before
the test scripts are run and you submitted a patch based on the
Frederic,
On 23 August 2013 13:08, Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org wrote:
Also I check for compiler warnings but lilypond builds with a lot of
compiler warnings which does not help. I think we should try to remove
all warnings.
Such as what?
James
Have you double-checked the code g++ generates? I should not be overly
surprised if current versions don't actually do much copying unless
required.
I know what you mean: premature optimization is the root of all
evil. But here, it is just following standard practice as recommended
by all
Also I check for compiler warnings but lilypond builds with a lot of
compiler warnings which does not help. I think we should try to remove
all warnings.
Such as what?
Maybe there are new in g++ 4.8.1. I get 260 lines of warnings with
make. Here all the warnings I get (duplicates removed):
Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org writes:
Have you double-checked the code g++ generates? I should not be overly
surprised if current versions don't actually do much copying unless
required.
I know what you mean: premature optimization is the root of all
evil. But here, it is just
Which textbooks would that be?
I think for example at Scott Meyers books (Effective C++, More
effective C++...).
I also read this in the 4th edition (includes C++11) of the C++
programming language (Stroustrup):
How do we choose among the ways of passing arguments? My rules of thumb are:
[1]
Frédéric Bron frederic.b...@m4x.org writes:
const string as return type is madness. For one thing, it's
guaranteed _not_ to be an efficiency gain in C++11. For another, it
produces _serious_ destructor/lifetime issues.
Of course I am not speaking of new strings created in the function!
13 matches
Mail list logo
