On Fri, Jul 30, 2021 at 07:42:45AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Well that unsticks the test, so now it fails in an ordinary way, so +1
> for doing that. I must say that --no-loop seems a little ill-designed.
> Effectively we have to choose between zero loops and infinite loops.
> But that seems to be a matter of ancient (or at least medieval) history.
Okay, done. We could add an option that defines a number of failures,
though I have yet to see a use for that in the field.
> I will see if a more modern zlib helps matters.
Thanks!
--
Michael