Ran
|
Files
34
|
Run time
3s
|
Badge
README BADGES
|
travis-ci
<a href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/<a class=hub.com/google/benchmark/commit/693680343e4f4846ffc1786e58892a228b21d9ef">693680343<a href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/693680343e4f4846ffc1786e58892a228b21d9ef">">compare_bench.py: fixup benchmark_options. https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/</a><a class="double-link" href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/<a class="double-link" href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/2373382284918fda13f726aefd6e2f700784797f">237338228</a>">237338228</a><a href="https://github.com/google/benchmark/commit/693680343e4f4846ffc1786e58892a228b21d9ef"> reworked parsing, and introduced a regression in handling of the optional options that should be passed to both of the benchmarks. Now, unless the *first* optional argument starts with '-', it would just complain about that argument: Unrecognized positional argument arguments: '['q']' which is wrong. However if some dummy arg like '-q' was passed first, it would then happily passthrough them all... This commit fixes benchmark_options behavior, by restoring original passthrough behavior for all the optional positional arguments.
1401 of 1614 relevant lines covered (86.8%)
3547025.89 hits per line
Coverage | ∆ | File | Lines | Relevant | Covered | Missed | Hits/Line |
---|