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This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.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 <github@lecris.me>
2fb7cd8 to
2722601
Compare
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. 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. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
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
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. |
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).