This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Remove unused libm-test expected-failure mechanism
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 05 May 2013 11:46:50 -0400
- Subject: Re: Remove unused libm-test expected-failure mechanism
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1305041343210 dot 658 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <51866F7C dot 8080604 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1305051454590 dot 16386 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 05/05/2013 11:07 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Sun, 5 May 2013, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>> It is my opinion that such an expected failure mechanism should be
>> handled by a higher level test framework, and that libm-test.inc
>> should simply report the list of all passed or failed tests given
>> that each test has a unique name.
>
> ... or that a test was unsupported / unresolved (e.g. because setting the
> rounding mode failed).
>
> But first we need to be able to track pass / fail information for whole
> tests, before tracking "unresolved" etc. and individual assertions. What
> happened with Tomas Dohnalek's patch from last September / October? It
> looks like the discussion tailed off with
> <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2012-10/msg00278.html>, but getting
> PASS/FAIL lines for each overall test run from the makefile ought to be an
> incremental piece of progress towards having the other statuses and more
> precise information from within individual tests; someone probably needs
> to pick up that patch or else decide that a different approach is needed.
It's in the pipeline, but not until later.
Cheers,
Carlos.