[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 

(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.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]