Re: [[PATCH RFC 2] 02/63] Y2038: add function __difftime64

[Albert ARIBAUD <albert dot aribaud at 3adev dot fr>]

Hi Joseph,

On Thu, 19 Apr 2018 13:18:38 +0000, Joseph Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote :

> On Thu, 19 Apr 2018, Albert ARIBAUD wrote:
> 
> > Re: test regressions: what I did was, on a target system, e.g. native
> > on an ARM system, to create two GLIBC trees, one with and one without
> > the patch set, configure them identically (except of course for the
> > build destination), run "make" and then run "make check" on both trees,
> > and compare the lists of errors, assuming that when the lists of errors
> > are the same there is no make check regression -- and then same for
> > 'make xcheck'.  
> 
> That only works if you have a good baseline set of results.  If your 
> baseline includes failures that aren't on the known list at 
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.27>, they could hide problems 
> in the testing of the patched glibc.

Noted. If I do a 'make check' from the git commit which corresponds to
this release, I should get the exact same list of failures as in the
release notes, right?

> In particular, the baseline should have *no* ABI test failures (you need 
> to configure --prefix=/usr to get the correct ABI).  And then you need to 
> update the ABI test baselines (for *all* supported glibc platforms that 
> currently have 32-bit time_t) to avoid introducing ABI test failures.

Will do in future tests.

Cordialement,
Albert ARIBAUD
3ADEV