Conversation
|
@LecrisUT The test with Address sanitizer for LLVM failed, but one for GCC succeeded. I have no idea why this difference happened. Do you have any idea? |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Co-authored-by: Cristian Le <[email protected]>
lan496
force-pushed
the
fix-construct-type-validation
branch
from
2fb7cd8 to
2722601
Compare
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
📣 This organization is not using Codecov’s GitHub App Integration. We recommend you install it so Codecov can continue to function properly for your repositories. Learn more Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #267 +/- ##
===========================================
+ Coverage 85.69% 85.90% +0.20%
===========================================
Files 23 23
Lines 6069 6071 +2
===========================================
+ Hits 5201 5215 +14
+ Misses 868 856 -12
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
LecrisUT
left a comment
LecrisUT
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When possible, can you add some quick comments in the code, e.g. why ASSERT_TRUE(size>0), or why/where it should fail?
LecrisUT
left a comment
LecrisUT
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM now w.r.t. C coding, but I'll let you guys confirm the technical details of this
|
@LecrisUT Many thanks! I'll merge this PR after atztogo checks. |
4 participants
Fixes: #249
In the example, the orders of FSG and XSG are not consistent due to high
mag_symprec.The PR validates the consistency (by checking a returned construct type from 1 to 4).