[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: running "make check"
From: |
Bruno Haible |
Subject: |
Re: running "make check" |
Date: |
Sun, 03 May 2020 12:07:23 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-177-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) |
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > > Maybe configure should die if LDBL_MANT_DIG is not expected. That
> > > should avoid the problem of silent failures. When configure fails
> > > folks will have to tend to the problem.
> >
> > I disagree. We have unit tests. For many packages, math.h related test
> > failures - and especially 'long double' related test failures - are
> > acceptable. The person who runs "make check" can surely evaluate the
> > severity of a test failure.
> >
> > Having configure die is the worst possible behaviour, because it elevates
> > the issue to severity 1 / BLOCKER.
>
> The logic assumes everyone runs 'make check'. I know for certain it is
> not the case.
>
> That leaves the silent failures as the default use case for some users.
>
> (I don't claim users who fail to run 'make check' are correct. I just
> acknowledge they exist and you should engineer around them).
I disagree. We shouldn't have 'configure' or 'make' do what 'make check'
does. Instead we should educate those misinformed people about the
necessity to run 'make check'.
Bruno