On 12-Sep-00 at 05:19, Alexander Mai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2000 at 09:46:54PM -0400, Rick Scott wrote:
> > I finally got around to getting openMotif to compile on my box. Okay, I
> > had to #if 0 out a wack of stuff dealing with XICProc's, whatever they
> > are, so these results may be tainted a bit. Anyway, here is what I
> > found...... 
> > With LessTif
> > we fail 63 out of 555 tests
> > 
> > With openMotif
> > we fail 92 out of 519 tests
> > 
> > So to start 36 of the tests did not even compile under openMotif. Correct
> > me if I'm wrong Jon, all of the tests have compiled, and run, under some
> > version of Motif 1.2.
> > 
> > Unfortunatly, all is not rosy.....We are segfaulting on _alot_ of tests
> > that we never used to!!!!!! For example, textf/test8!!!!! Simply
> > creating and destroying a damn TextField, we are now segfaulting!!!! Also
> > filesb test11, 12, an 13!!!! This is just damn depressing...... A hell of
> > a lot of time and effort have gone into the tests over _many_ years, and
> > for what?? It seems that they are not being used anymore.....
> > 
> > So much for improvements.....the next step needs to be going back and get
> > running that which ran before......sigh.....
> 
> I don't understand fully:
> 
> "We are segfaulting on _alot_ of tests that we never used to!"
> means what: you just discovered bugs in the tests or in LT or in OM?
> (probably in all of them ...)

Problems in LT. textf/test8 is a good example. 48 lines of source, at least 8
of those are comments. I know for a fact that it used to run because I wrote
it...


> 
> WRT the tests: I recently reported about a buggy test program which just
> should crash due to a bug in the code. Probably not the only buggy test
> example. Note that running the tests on different platforms is really
> helpful here since some environments are less forgiving and therefore
> more helpful than others.

I agree that we do have some bad tests, but I'm sure the textf and filesb ones
used to run.



> 
> -- 
> Alexander Mai
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> 

Reply via email to