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: