On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:07 AM Bruno Haible <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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'.
RTFM has not worked in the last 50 years. It is not going to suddenly start working now. Jeff
