On 2020-02-23 15:39 +0100, Tadeus Prastowo via lfs-dev wrote: > Hello, > > Quoting > http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/development/chapter06/glibc.html > > You may see some test failures. The Glibc test suite is somewhat > dependent on the host system. This is a list of the most common issues > seen for some versions of LFS: > > End quote. > > To that list, I would like to propose the inclusion of the following > failed tests: > XPASS: elf/tst-protected1a > XPASS: elf/tst-protected1b > The explanation to be included in the book is as follows: > > The tests elf/tst-protected1a and elf/tst-protected1b are known to > fail with XPASS, which is a failure due to a successful test that is > indeed expected to fail. The failures of elf/tst-protected1a and > elf/tst-protected1b with XPASS is indeed a good thing because they > have been expected to fail only with old versions of GCC and binutils > (for the details, see > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-08/msg01210.html for the > background and https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2015-09/msg00125.html > for the conclusion). > > Thank you for considering my proposal.
We don't consider XPASS a failure. There are many XPASS in LFS packages (>20 in total, I think) and it does not make sense to document them one by one. I'd never seen a XPASS which is a "bad thing". Once a grep maintainer believed "XPASS is bad" so he made the entire test suite to FAIL if there was any XPASS. Then after a Glibc upgrading, a XPASS in grep forced us to use "-k" for grep "make check". It's stupid IMO - a test suite should not be a fragile "status change detector". We can add a discussion about the meaning of PASS/FAIL/XPASS/XFAIL in "4.6 About the Test Suites", though. -- Xi Ruoyao <xry...@mengyan1223.wang> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
