This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH v3.1] New functions pthread_[sg]etattr_default_np for default thread attributes
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Siddhesh Poyarekar <siddhesh at redhat dot com>, Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2013 11:08:03 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v3.1] New functions pthread_[sg]etattr_default_np for default thread attributes
- References: <CAAHN_R13bRF0UY_XZ7Rj6tSeSgq8c_0j4bbEH6m9BbGD32EycQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20130528220730 dot 33C262C06F at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130529065138 dot GF2145 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20130529224222 dot 8A87F2C07E at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130606131212 dot GZ13968 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20130612000601 dot 54C9F2C06E at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130612101128 dot GB19582 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <20130612231757 dot CCC752C07F at topped-with-meat dot com> <20130613022810 dot GJ19582 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306131240490 dot 10141 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20130613130540 dot GV19582 at spoyarek dot pnq dot redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1306131419460 dot 8652 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 06/13/2013 10:21 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jun 2013, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>
>>> I think that's a bad idea. In practice what goes in the test's .out file
>>> is *more* visible than what goes in the huge pile of make check output.
>>> Arguably stderr as well as stdout should be redirected.
>>
>> IIRC the rationale behind that was that such warnings go unnoticed and
>> it is assumed that all tests *passed* when in reality some may have
>> been skipped. I think [1] may have been the point where I had noted
>
> The notion that people notice a warning that scrolls off the screen in
> under a second is unrealistic. If I want details of what happened for a
> particular test, I examine its .out file. To distinguish passing and
> skipped tests for the overall testsuite status, we need more structured
> information in the .out files about the status of particular test
> assertions, rather than unstructured warnings appearing mixed up with huge
> numbers of long compilation and test-running commands.
>
Would you agree that the real problem is not that the message is
printed to stderr, but that each test's stderr does not get
recorded in a file for later review e.g. $test.err?
I think that the patch as Siddhesh has it is correct, but we need
a testsuite fix to redirect stderr (along with a long list of other
testsuite fixes).
Unless you think that stderr should be used for another purpose,
like actual testsuite problems?
Cheers,
Carlos.