[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: bug-38236.tst (was Re: HAVE_FFTW macro)
From: |
c. |
Subject: |
Re: bug-38236.tst (was Re: HAVE_FFTW macro) |
Date: |
Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:22:19 +0100 |
On 18 Mar 2013, at 08:31, address@hidden wrote:
> Are these "bug-xxxxx" code hunks to be reminders of some sort (in which
> case, why not use xtest instead of test)? Or are they something to
> check recently fixed bugs to make sure everything is working out in the
> field?
I don't know for other "bug-xxxxx" code hunks but I added bug-38236.tst as
I intended to work on fixing the bug myself and needed that to test my progress.
After a few attempts, though, I am a bit lost about how to fix that bug as
I do not have much experience with the parser internals, so I would appreciate
help/pointers regarding this one.
I don't think this should be marked as an expected failure as it is a
regression:
it seems to work fine on the stable branch.
I am unable to use "hg bisect" to locate the changeset that broke this
functionality
as I cannot build versions before January 2013 on my system (OSX 10.8), maybe
someone
could help me locate the changeset doing an "hg bisect" on Linux?
c.
- Re: bug-38236.tst (was Re: HAVE_FFTW macro),
c. <=