Daryle Walker wrote:
On 12/6/05 6:00 PM, "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Daryle Walker wrote:
[SNIP a library that failed on every compiler]
This could be another case to watch out for: when a library fails on every compiler (or a least a lot of them). Here it would be the library that's possibly broken.
Isn't that exactly what these tests are supposed to measure ? Or do you mean that in case *all* tests fail the report could just mention a single failure, on a different granularity scale ?
Yes, I meant the latter. If we suddenly see a compiler fail on every library, or a library fail on every compiler, then we probably have a configuration issue. (But how do we implement "suddenly," since the tests don't keep a history of past results? We only want to block blooper runs, not compilers or libraries that legitimately fail everything.)
Indeed. One thing I already proposed in the past: some dummy tests (akin to autoconf macros) that make sure a sane configuration / environment is available at all. These tests could cover a specific toolchain, or even some lightweight library-specific code. If these are known as dependencies for the rest of the test suite(s), quite a bit of computing power (and mail bandwidth) could be spared whenever these fail. Regards, Stefan