Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > > Maybe configure should die if LDBL_MANT_DIG is not expected. That > > > should avoid the problem of silent failures. When configure fails > > > folks will have to tend to the problem. > > > > I disagree. We have unit tests. For many packages, math.h related test > > failures - and especially 'long double' related test failures - are > > acceptable. The person who runs "make check" can surely evaluate the > > severity of a test failure. > > > > Having configure die is the worst possible behaviour, because it elevates > > the issue to severity 1 / BLOCKER. > > The logic assumes everyone runs 'make check'. I know for certain it is > not the case. > > That leaves the silent failures as the default use case for some users. > > (I don't claim users who fail to run 'make check' are correct. I just > acknowledge they exist and you should engineer around them).
I disagree. We shouldn't have 'configure' or 'make' do what 'make check' does. Instead we should educate those misinformed people about the necessity to run 'make check'. Bruno
