Skip to content
Commits on Jul 14, 2010
  1. @voidptr
Commits on Jul 13, 2010
  1. changed .pyx dependencies

    committed Jul 13, 2010
Commits on Jul 9, 2010
  1. @voidptr

    Updated NOTES

    voidptr committed Jul 9, 2010
  2. @voidptr

    Finished adding the iterator tests.

    voidptr committed Jul 9, 2010
    Not perfectly thrilled with some of the functionality (the returning of ival stop/start values) so
    the interface is still probably a little bit fluid.
    
    Next is some bench-marking to see where we are with iteration, compared to samtools
  3. @voidptr
  4. Fixed an out of bounds error, where an empty array wasn't being prope…

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 9, 2010
    …rly interpreted.
  5. @voidptr
Commits on Jul 8, 2010
  1. @voidptr
  2. Removed extraneous .dll and .ilk files that shouldn't be distributed.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 8, 2010
  3. @voidptr

    Updated .gitignore

    voidptr committed Jul 8, 2010
  4. @voidptr

    Updated .gitignore and NOTES

    voidptr committed Jul 8, 2010
  5. @voidptr
  6. @voidptr
  7. @voidptr

    Re-added basic Caper tests, which now pass. Hooray!

    voidptr committed Jul 8, 2010
    Next, it's readding the Pygr bridge tests.w
  8. @voidptr
Commits on Jul 7, 2010
  1. Commented out all the debug statements. Will totally remove them when…

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
    … I finish up the test code.
  2. Fixed damned bug.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
    What a delightful one. What it boils down to is that gcc initializes your member variables (ints, in particular) for you, to
    -1. I had a typo in an if statement comparing against mIndex (my member variable) rather than aIndex (my parameter).
    
    Further, there was an error with how I was handling End values. My default starting index was -1, the same as my End flag index, creating a meaning collision. Poop. So, I fixed that. Who knows what the repercussions would have been otherwise.
    
    That kind of thing is just bad design, and I'll need to go back and fix it in the future.
  3. Aha! That's a weird behaviour difference between when constructors ar…

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
    …e called by visual studio vs gcc.
    
    Seems the gcc behaviour is correct. When I init an iterator, CALL THE FUCKING CONSTRUCTOR.
    The only reason VS seemed to be behaving correctly (not reallocating the cache) was because
    it wasn't calling the constructor. Who knows why?
  4. debug messages

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  5. More debug.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  6. More debug

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  7. Redoing debug statements (thinning the herd)

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  8. Even more debugging statements. This is getting ridiculous.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  9. Even more debugging messages.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  10. More debugging statements.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  11. Oops.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  12. Re-did commenting out of extraneous destructor (wtf?)

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  13. @voidptr

    Still tracking down weird bug.

    voidptr committed Jul 7, 2010
  14. Updated some files to fix an extra destructor that was being called.

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  15. Added updated zlib vcxproj file

    Rosangela Canino-Koning committed Jul 7, 2010
  16. @voidptr
  17. @voidptr

    Intermediate commit. Tracking down destructor crash bug, and bizarre …

    voidptr committed Jul 7, 2010
    …unneccessary re-init of caches.
Something went wrong with that request. Please try again.