[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: testsuite: 24 25 64 failed
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: testsuite: 24 25 64 failed |
Date: |
Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:56:56 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) |
* Nix wrote on Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 12:39:33PM CET:
> On 24 Mar 2008, Ralf Wildenhues verbalised:
> > Thanks for the testsuite feedback.
>
> Most of it reduces to `my bizarre configuration broke your finely-honed
> testsuite' and doesn't actually indicate a fault in libtool per se, so
> I'm not sure quite how useful it actually is :)
Well, the testsuite is intended to work in a wide variety of setups.
We can always skip tests if some setup is too bizarre.
> > * Nix wrote on Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:01:13PM CET:
> >>
> >> The underlying cause of test 24's failure appears to be that LDFLAGS is
> >> not consistently propagated down: note that a lot of the link steps do
> >> not pass in my LDFLAGS of -specs=specs.no-as-needed, so get linked with
> >> --as-needed (which is the default on my system) and subsequently
> >> fail. (FWIW the only things I've ever seen fail with --as-needed are
> >> linker-semantics testsuites like this one. :)
> >
> > First, you can try
> > LDFLAGS=-Wc,-specs=specs.no-as-needed
>
> It seems to me that adding -Wl to the LDFLAGS wouldn't do anything
> useful: it's the compiler driver that interprets the specs file, not the
> linker. (And -Wc doesn't exist :) )
>
> Hm, yes, it's not useful:
Ah, sorry for not being precise. Just try
make check-local TESTSUITEFLAGS='-v -d -x -k runpath
LDFLAGS=-Wc,-specs=specs.no-as-needed'
(all on one line). And yes, `-Wc,' exists as both a documented compiler
flag (for which this particular instance is _not_ useful), and as a
documented libtool link mode flags. (For issues such as this one, an
Automake variable LIBTOOL_LDFLAGS would be useful).
> >> Test 25's failure is weirder and I don't know what its cause might be yet.
I'll address 25 separately (confirmed with --disable-static, BTW).
> >> Test 64 doesn't seem to have any failure details in the log at all.
> >
> > Oh it does. Test 64 reruns a number of the other tests with low
> > max_cmd_len set, it just sees the failures of 24 and 25 again.
>
> Ah! It might be nice if testsuite.log reported that, but I can't
> think of a way of doing that without bloating it up even more than
> it already is :)
But it does report just that! It's merely that the testsuite output is
a bit difficult to parse.
Cheers,
Ralf
- testsuite: 24 25 64 failed, Nix, 2008/03/21
- Fix disable-static -all-static (was: testsuite: 24 25 64 failed), Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/24
- Re: Fix disable-static -all-static, Nix, 2008/03/24
- Re: Fix disable-static -all-static, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/03/24
- Re: Fix disable-static -all-static (was: testsuite: 24 25 64 failed), Bob Friesenhahn, 2008/03/24