This is the mail archive of the crossgcc@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the crossgcc project.

See the CrossGCC FAQ for lots more information.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results

From: Ken Rose <kenrose at tfb dot com>
To: Dan Kegel <dank at kegel dot com>
Cc: Dan Kegel <dkegel at ixiacom dot com>, crossgcc <crossgcc at sources dot redhat dot com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 10:42:05 -0700
Subject: Re: Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results
References: <3EE7D3E8.3020401@ixiacom.com> <3EE8A3A2.9852670B@tfb.com> <3EE8AEE3.5010603@kegel.com>
Reply-to: rose at acm dot org

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.

 - ken

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results
  - From: Doug Evans

References:
- Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results
  - From: Dan Kegel
- Re: Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results
  - From: Ken Rose
- Re: Interpreting gcc-3.3 "make check" results
  - From: Dan Kegel

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]