Re: running "make check"

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 6:07 AM Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> 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'.

RTFM has not worked in the last 50 years. It is not going to suddenly
start working now.

Jeff