On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 10:29:47AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> But what does that get you? Just that GCC is as broken (or not) as it was
> previously. It doesn't actually tell you whether the problems reported are
> spurious or serious, does it?
Please don't have this sort of discussion on -r
[M-f-t set, I think this is offtopic for -release.]
Matthew Palmer wrote:
[snip]
> > > Common sense would suggest that tests that have to be analysed by a human
> > > being after every test run aren't particularly useful.
> >
> > Actually, skimming over the dozen or so failing ones, and recognizi
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [snip]
> > > > So what are the tests useful for, then? They're obviously useless as a
> > > > gauge of quality, because failing tests apparently don't indicate a
> > > > flaw in
> > > > the software.
> > >
>
Matthew Palmer wrote:
[snip]
> > > So what are the tests useful for, then? They're obviously useless as a
> > > gauge of quality, because failing tests apparently don't indicate a flaw
> > > in
> > > the software.
> >
> > A little common sense, please? The test results have to be interpreted
>
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 05:12:57PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:47:45AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:59PM +, James Troup wrote:
> > > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > >> would pretty much ensure that the package n
On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:47:45AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:59PM +, James Troup wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> would pretty much ensure that the package never, ever builds. And
> > >
> > > Well, if it's always broken, we don't re
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:59PM +, James Troup wrote:
> Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> would pretty much ensure that the package never, ever builds. And
> >
> > Well, if it's always broken, we don't really want it, do we?
>
> If 'failing tests == broken' then we wouldn't ha
Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So what do you propose to do? Fail the build if there are test failures? That
>
> Well, there's a reason that test suites exist, you know. If your
> tests are failing spuriously, then it's time to fix the tests, not
> ignore them.
I'm sure the gcc de
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 10:57:09AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> I just read a buildlog for gcc-3.4 and saw large amount of test failures
> but the build themself is marked as successfull. I don't think this is
> the proper use of a testsuite and have to asume that nothing in the
> package may work
On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 11:09:09AM +0100, Falk Hueffner wrote:
> Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 03.01.05 10:57:34:
>
> > I just read a buildlog for gcc-3.4 and saw large amount of test failures
> > but the build themself is marked as successfull. I don't think this is
> > the proper
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb am 03.01.05 10:57:34:
> I just read a buildlog for gcc-3.4 and saw large amount of test failures
> but the build themself is marked as successfull. I don't think this is
> the proper use of a testsuite and have to asume that nothing in the
> package may wo
I just read a buildlog for gcc-3.4 and saw large amount of test failures
but the build themself is marked as successfull. I don't think this is
the proper use of a testsuite and have to asume that nothing in the
package may work.
Bastian
--
It is more rational to sacrifice one life than six.
12 matches
Mail list logo
