On Oct 22, 2018, at 01:59 PM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: On 10/22/2018 01:08 PM, Ken Moffat wrote: On Mon, Oct 22, 2018 at 05:27:59PM +0000, Hans Malissa wrote:
So are these tests documented in detail somewhere? The glibc website doesn't give explanation of the individual test cases as far as I can see. Thanks a lot, Hans They were probably discussed (at a guess, on the libc-alpha list) before being committed. Those are the type of google matches I was referring to. But in general, I am not aware of any documentation explaining what a test if doing. That is true for most projects, not just glibc. Often, the test script may explain what it is doing - but for us mere mortals the details will usually be hard to understand because we lack context, e.g. about how the test actually runs. Some are fairly simple, others either delete their output before the tests have finished, or require specific knowledge to understand what they are doing.Let me add that we build gcc in a partial environment. There are a lot of factors that can cause a test failure including kernel configuration, support libraries, etc. In some cases we've seen test failures because a library is too new for the assumptions made in the test.
-- Bruce Thanks for the responses, this is really helpful. The book makes it quite clear that the test suites are critically important, at least for some packages. But from this discussion it seems as if things may be okay even with "a few" failed tests. And I guess there's a fine line between "just a few failed tests" and "a failed package build". Thanks everyone for your help! Hans
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
