On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Matthew Palmer wrote: > [snip] > > > > 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. > > > > Common sense would suggest that tests that have to be analysed by a human > > being after every test run aren't particularly useful. > > Actually, skimming over the dozen or so failing ones, and recognizing > they are the same as in the last run isn't that hard. But what does that get you? Just that GCC is as broken (or not) as it was previously. It doesn't actually tell you whether the problems reported are spurious or serious, does it? - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature