On 12/09/2017 12:31, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Hm, does this mean that instead of ./check failing when a binary is > missing, we try each test case now and each one fails with the same > error message? > > *tries it out* > > Okay, it's already broken today because the strings are never empty but > contain the name of the wrapper functions, but it's still bad behaviour. > Instead of just telling me that the binary is missing like it used to > work, I get tons of test case diffs.
So the patch is still dead code, isn't it? Paolo
