Hi,
On Mon, 10 Oct 2016, grischka wrote:
> In general, often when I see people adding tests I think: "Well you
> just fixed that, what's the point? I'd rather see what's still broken."
The point of course is to not break things ever again, after somebody got
to the length of fixing something
Uhm, that is not exactly the 5 lines isolated bug test case we'd wish.
Thanks anyway. Please retry.
FYI, the offending line was tccpe.c:1184
*(DWORD*)(s->data + rel->r_offset) += addr - pe->imagebase;
and what happens here is that tcc is trying to create code for adding
PTR s->data and lo
IMHO, there are two different things to consider:
- a non-regression tests suite which is only about regressions. It contains
tests that once proved to be a BUG which are fixed and we don't want to see
back again. It contains also complete and silly tests that are not expected
to fail (1.0 == 1 is
