This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: PSA: glibc buildbot slave up for aarch64
On Friday 28 April 2017 10:58 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> I'm not sure it's even regressions being XFAILed; it's generally tests
> that never worked, or never worked on a particular platform (and where
> fixing the issue may well require global changes across other toolchain
> components and the Linux kernel, e.g. the MIPS XFAIL of check-execstack).
Right, I should not have said regressions, just bugs for which there is
a test case in the testsuite and it is currently failing. Also, this is
kinda the reason why I am uncomfortable with using the XFAIL mechanism
indiscriminately - they conflate these kinds of convoluted issues with
bugs than could have been fixed in a specified time frame but weren't
because they weren't thought to be important enough at that time.
> Bug reports to libc-alpha may well be useful, but I don't think "is there
> a test in the testsuite for this bug" is a particularly useful criterion
> for them. Numbers of open bugs in total and in each component, with how
> that changed over the past week / month / year, or a list of recently
> opened / reopened bugs, seem like the sort of thing that might be more
> helpful for keeping on top of known bug state.
OK, I'll write a script that sends in such an email, although I still
maintain that identifying bugs that have failing test cases in the
testsuite are good candidates to identify separately, especially as a
metric of how we have been using the xfail mechanism and also as a guide
for those looking for a problem to solve in glibc. A slightly
complicated issue that isn't critical is a nice place to get started
with contributing to glibc and a test case to reproduce the problem and
step through code helps.
I also added a comment on the TODO Master wiki page about bug fixes,
with a special mention of XFAIL bugs.
Siddhesh