On 11/14/09, Ineiev <ineiev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 11/13/09, Peter Clifton <pcjc2@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 20:33 +0000, Ineiev wrote: >>> On 11/13/09, Ineiev <ineiev@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Next versions: fixed signs of second atan2 arguments; no DRC errors on >>> whole teardropped OSDCU board. >> >> Shall I push this then? > > Certainly, not (yet). > >> Something I find hard when people post patches to the email lists, is >> knowing when they are declared "ready", "tested" etc.. > > I'm inexpressibly happy this is not my problem. > >> I guess you've tested the corner cases of two arcs which _should_ touch? > > I think I'll run some tests today. So I built a montecarlo; fixed some ugly unrealistic cases like thin arc merged in bloat and arc->Delta<-360; run the program (aat.c) several hours on different machines including ifctfvax.Harhan.ORG and gcc55.fsffrance.org; that discovered no errors, though the number of points was not very high (a thousand or slightly more): the reference functions are really slow. That resulted in arc.bis.patch. I tested it also with already mentioned teardropped OSDCU.pcb and t1.pcb. And n2.pcb is a little modest present for those developers who are curious about segmentation faults concerned with polygons: just a ring, an arc and a tetragon produce segmentation faults on loading PCB (24669073abf8a2ebc52d4644e3da4a9d3401d4b5). Any ideas? Ineiev
Attachment:
aat.c
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
arc.bis.patch
Description: Binary data
Attachment:
n2.pcb
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ geda-user mailing list geda-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.seul.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geda-user