Skip to content

Fix architecture typo x64_64 -> x86_64 #6909

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 8, 2022
Merged

Fix architecture typo x64_64 -> x86_64 #6909

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 8, 2022

Conversation

tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator

x64_64 does not seem to be a valid architecture, and likely is just a
typo for what should be x86_64.

  • Each commit message has a non-empty body, explaining why the change was made.
  • n/a Methods or procedures I have added are documented, following the guidelines provided in CODING_STANDARD.md.
  • n/a The feature or user visible behaviour I have added or modified has been documented in the User Guide in doc/cprover-manual/
  • Regression or unit tests are included, or existing tests cover the modified code (in this case I have detailed which ones those are in the commit message).
  • n/a My commit message includes data points confirming performance improvements (if claimed).
  • My PR is restricted to a single feature or bugfix.
  • n/a White-space or formatting changes outside the feature-related changed lines are in commits of their own.

NlightNFotis
NlightNFotis approved these changes Jun 7, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@NlightNFotis NlightNFotis left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Good catch!

I can also see that the change this code is pretty old (9+ years ago was the latest commit), so this means that this branch had no coverage, so it wasn't checked.

Is it possible to sneak in a quick regression test for this, just so that we get coverage of that?

If a regression test is not appropriate, perhaps just a unit test might do?

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Jun 7, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Codecov Report

Merging #6909 (d2eca24) into develop (6685497) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #6909   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    77.78%   77.78%           
========================================
  Files         1568     1568           
  Lines       180269   180269           
========================================
  Hits        140230   140230           
  Misses       40039    40039
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
src/util/config.cpp 57.85% <100.00%> (ø)

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 31e4ddf...d2eca24. Read the comment docs.

peterschrammel
peterschrammel approved these changes Jun 7, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@peterschrammel peterschrammel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oups

@tautschnig
Fix architecture typo x64_64 -> x86_64
d2eca24 
x64_64 does not seem to be a valid architecture, and likely is just a
typo for what should be x86_64.
@tautschnig tautschnig force-pushed the bugfixes/config-arch branch from 92e0040 to d2eca24 Compare June 8, 2022 13:14
@tautschnig
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I have now added a nominal test, but we don't actually use mingw in our CI flow, so it won't actually be detected in our CI runs (else we would have found this problem way earlier).

@tautschnig tautschnig merged commit 3e99b67 into diffblue:develop Jun 8, 2022
@tautschnig tautschnig deleted the bugfixes/config-arch branch June 8, 2022 14:42
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@kroening kroening kroening approved these changes

@NlightNFotis NlightNFotis NlightNFotis approved these changes

@peterschrammel peterschrammel peterschrammel approved these changes

@TGWDB TGWDB TGWDB approved these changes

Assignees

@tautschnig tautschnig

Labels
bugfix
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
5 participants
@tautschnig @kroening @NlightNFotis @peterschrammel @TGWDB