It's in the plans. Steve, any opinions on my last email about tests?
On Sunday, March 7, 2010, Korey Sewell <ksew...@umich.edu> wrote: > The pass/fail groupings are probably a good idea. > > Not sure why those inorder tests are failing, but I should be able to take a > look tomorrow. I haven't been paying too close of attention to the changesets > so I'm not sure off-hand what could be the culprit. > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Gabe Black <gbl...@eecs.umich.edu> wrote: > > Cron Daemon wrote: >> ***** build/ALPHA_SE/tests/fast/long/70.twolf/alpha/tru64/inorder-timing >> FAILED! >> ***** build/ALPHA_SE/tests/fast/long/50.vortex/alpha/tru64/inorder-timing >> FAILED! >> > > I don't know if anybody noticed these. There were a couple last week > too, apparently. Since we have so many results these days, maybe we > should group them pass/fail? That would make it harder to miss failures > and make looking at the results much easier. > > Gabe > _______________________________________________ > m5-dev mailing list > m5-dev@m5sim.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev > > > -- > - Korey > _______________________________________________ m5-dev mailing list m5-dev@m5sim.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/m5-dev
