Re: Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results

[Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>]

Ken Rose writes:
 > Dan Kegel wrote:
 > > 
 > > Ken Rose wrote:
 > > >>I'm testing gcc-3.3/glibc-2.3.2, and I forgot to use the -k option
 > > >>to 'make check', so it terminated on the first failure.
 > > >
 > > > -k is a new one for me.  When did it appear?
 > > 
 > > 1985 or so.  It just means 'keep running make even if one target fails'.
 > > It's used in e.g. contrib/regression/btest-gcc.sh
 > 
 > Oh, right, make.  I was thinking of runtest.
 > 
 > Still, it shouldn't bail if a testcase fails, just if runtest fails,
 > that is, exits abnormally.  I've had test runs produce thousands of
 > failures, and then "make check" goes on and tests the next compiler
 > anyway.

I think by "first failure" Dan meant the first runtest failed
(and by failure here I mean of course "non-zero exit code").

i.e. suppose you did a make check in a binutils release
and both ld and gas have testsuite failures (and for the sake of
discussion suppose gas gets tested first).
"make check" will run the gas testsuite but not the ld testsuite.
"make -k check" will run both testsuites (plus all the others
in the release of course).

------
Want more information?  See the CrossGCC FAQ, http://www.objsw.com/CrossGCC/
Want to unsubscribe? Send a note to crossgcc-unsubscribe@sources.redhat.com