"Phil Richards" <news@derived-software.ltd.uk> wrote in message news:20050617135816.4AEE99A7BD@derisoft.derived-software.demon.co.uk...
On 2005-06-17, Phil Richards <news@derived-software.ltd.uk> wrote:
On 2005-06-17, Phil Richards <news@derived-software.ltd.uk> wrote:
Thought I would try and track down the reason for the "Fail" being shown in the HTML regression report generated by compiler_status. [...] The "pass" assignment should take account of the "test-type". (I can put a patch together, but I might not cover all the cases since I don't know the system too well yet.) Not the most error-checked code in the world (should test_type be validated?), but here's a patch that gets rid of a lot of "Fail"s that weren't really fails: [...]
As I said, not particularly checked, and as it turned out, wrong. This version does seem to work a lot better...
OK, applied to CVS. Thanks very much for detecting this problem and submitting a patch. In boot-root/tools/regression/test, the existing test programs were renamed to better identify the expected results, and new test programs were added to detect regressions of the problem Phil detected, and also detect similar problems. Those new tests identified an additional minor problem, where compile-fail tests which succeeded were reported as "Warn" rather than "Pass". That has also been fixed. Thanks, --Beman