[WARNING] Not clear if MarchingSquares::edgeMask and MarchingSquares::edges are set correctly

[aaptho]

When building PoissonRecon, my compiler informs me of this message, and I didn't see an issue tracking it. Are there more details on the issue behind this warning?

[aaptho]

As pointed out in #26, there seems to be a logic error in IsEdgeCorner. cIndex && 2, 1, or 4 would always return true, and it seems the intention was to use & instead of &&. Is it possible this change would fix the issue it's talking about here?

bool Cube::IsEdgeCorner( int cIndex , int e )
{
	int o , i , j;
	FactorEdgeIndex( e , o , i , j );
	switch( o )
	{
	case 0: return (cIndex && 2)==(i<<1) && (cIndex && 4)==(j<<2);
	case 1: return (cIndex && 1)==(i<<0) && (cIndex && 4)==(j<<2);
	case 2: return (cIndex && 4)==(i<<2) && (cIndex && 2)==(j<<1);
	default: return false;
	}
}

[mkazhdan]

Nope. It's a not I left there for myself that I am 99% certain can be ignored.

…

On May 23, 2018 2:44:19 PM EDT, Aaron Thompson ***@***.***> wrote: When building PoissonRecon, my compiler informs me of this message, and I didn't see an issue tracking it. Are there more details on the issue behind this warning? -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #66

[mkazhdan]

I don't think that code exists in the latest release.

…

On May 23, 2018 2:48:35 PM EDT, Aaron Thompson ***@***.***> wrote: As pointed out in #26, there seems to be a logic error in IsEdgeCorner. `cIndex && 2`, 1, or 4 would always return true, and it seems the intention was to use `&` instead of `&&`. Is it possible this change would fix the issue it's talking about here? ``` bool Cube::IsEdgeCorner( int cIndex , int e ) { int o , i , j; FactorEdgeIndex( e , o , i , j ); switch( o ) { case 0: return (cIndex && 2)==(i<<1) && (cIndex && 4)==(j<<2); case 1: return (cIndex && 1)==(i<<0) && (cIndex && 4)==(j<<2); case 2: return (cIndex && 4)==(i<<2) && (cIndex && 2)==(j<<1); default: return false; } } ``` -- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #66 (comment)

[aaptho]

Ah, right you are, it's no longer there. Thanks! Closing.