[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: gcc-3.4 emits large amounts of test failures

On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:47:45AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 03, 2005 at 02:07:59PM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> > Matthew Palmer <mpalmer@debian.org> writes:
> > >> would pretty much ensure that the package never, ever builds. And
> > >
> > > Well, if it's always broken, we don't really want it, do we?
> > 
> > If 'failing tests == broken' then we wouldn't have a working compiler
> > for any architecture and/or for any release.  I think there's a small
> > flaw in your logic.
> So what are the tests useful for, then?  They're obviously useless as a
> gauge of quality, because failing tests apparently don't indicate a flaw in
> the software.

A little common sense, please?  The test results have to be interpreted
by a human being.  There are about twenty thousand tests and most
architectures fail maybe a few dozen.

Daniel Jacobowitz

Reply to: