Discussion:
[Maxima-commits] [git] Maxima CAS branch master updated. branch-5_40-base-62-gbcf0b4c
(too old to reply)
Raymond Toy
2017-06-27 21:58:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:11 PM, Gunter Königsmann via Maxima-commits <
This is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was
generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing
the project "Maxima CAS".
The branch, master has been updated
via bcf0b4c2ed9e2d298bfe23d8022f71e6ab1197ac (commit)
from 09d6e16e18797f9531821f07a0971f3859b7ad35 (commit)
Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have
not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those
revisions in full, below.
- Log -----------------------------------------------------------------
commit bcf0b4c2ed9e2d298bfe23d8022f71e6ab1197ac
Date: Wed Jun 21 06:31:55 2017 +0200
Tried to make all warnings use a consistent format.
The idea of this step is to make automatic detection of warnings
by a gui frontend easier and less prone to produce false positives
on messages like "0 warnings, 0 errors".
As warnings began with " warning:", "Warning: ", "Warning - ",
"<MODULENAME>: Warning:", Warning- <Modulename>- " there was the
possibility to pick one or two of the existing formats.
- Warning: <message text>
- <module name>: Warning: <message text>
The next nightly build of wxMaxima now will look for the following
two regExps in order to find warnings and automatically format them
share/lapack/lapack/dlamc2.lisp | 2 +-
share/odepack/src/dlsoda.lisp | 6 +++---
share/odepack/src/dlsodar.lisp | 6 +++---
share/odepack/src/dlsode.lisp | 2 +-
share/odepack/src/dlsodes.lisp | 2 +-
share/odepack/src/dlsodi.lisp | 2 +-
share/odepack/src/dlsodis.lisp | 2 +-
share/odepack/src/dlsodkr.lisp | 8 ++++----
share/odepack/src/dlsodpk.lisp | 8 ++++----
share/odepack/src/dlsoibt.lisp | 2 +-
​​You shouldn't be manually editing these files. They're machine generated
from Fortran so if they ever get regenerated, your changes will be
deleted.​​

​If you must change these, edit the Fortran code and regenerate ​the lisp
files. (I would avoid this if possible.)
--
Ray
Gunter Königsmann
2017-06-27 23:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
​​You shouldn't be manually editing these files. They're machine
generated from Fortran so if they ever get regenerated, your changes
will be deleted.​​
That would explain why they weren't changed/changed permanently the last
time warnings weren't unified.
​If you must change these, edit the Fortran code and regenerate ​the
lisp files. (I would avoid this if possible.)
Good idea, that.

The question is now: Should I revert the unifying the warnings for these
files since it will be automatically undone sooner or later by someone
regenerating the files - or should I let the warnings unified for now
knowing that that won't last forever?

I'm OK with both possibilities.

Kind regards,

Gunter.
Robert Dodier
2017-06-28 03:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Gunter Königsmann
The question is now: Should I revert the unifying the warnings for these
files since it will be automatically undone sooner or later by someone
regenerating the files - or should I let the warnings unified for now
knowing that that won't last forever?
My advice is to revert the changes to generated files.

best

Robert Dodier

Loading...