René Vincent Jansen
René Vincent Jansen
Whoa - it seems that this merge set back f0049 to a point into the past. we.rexx is an older version and the rxfnsb and rxfnsc split is gone.
No, there were source directories for rxfnsb and c, and changes from Peter and me. Also, there was a crexx.rexx in the bin directory - for a long time already....
no, that is crxc.rexx - its granddaddy. best regards, René > On 7 Jan 2025, at 16:25, Adrian Sutherland ***@***.***> wrote: > > > Somehow I am missing my /bin/crexx.rexx...
I will have a look. Error might be on my side.René.On 7 Jan 2025, at 18:11, Adrian Sutherland ***@***.***> wrote: rxfnsb and c are there —Reply to this email directly,...
Mea maxima culpa. Apologies for the panic. I know what happened. I pulled f0049, and it did not build. Then - I cloned the repo anew, to a crexx-f0049 directory...
Hi Peter, well, don't do that yet! I did a new yesterday and you know what happened. I have two new explanations: (true, honestly!) - I had the wrong glasses...
I understand. This draws attention to the fact that we must have a whole different set of numerical bifs for level C.
Reopening this as there are multiple failures in the current testset, also with simpler cases. Did we have a regression somewhere? Current state: ``` failed in test 12 x2d(81) -127...
failed in test 12 x2d(81) -127 but must be 129 failed in test 13 x2d(F81) -127 but must be 3969 failed in test 14 x2d(FF81) -127 but must be 65409...
I have added reradix and ts_reradix which might be used to fix x2d - it passes the above testcases