Jonathan Wakely wrote on 07/19/2018 08:48 PM:
On Thu, 19 Jul 2018 at 19:07, U.Mutlu wrote:
This is suspect:
It seems running the above said single file test does not produce any FAIL :-)
(unlike the corrosponding FAILs in the big list above)
Ie. maybe some "false-positives" happening when doing the big "make check"s.
So, then there could be a bug in the testing framework (?)
Unlikely. Before assuming a bug check the test actually ran. Look in
the .log or .sum file and see if it PASSed or simply wasn't run. If
you're expecting a FAIL it's far more likely it just didn't run than
you've found a bug in DejaGnu that nobody else has found.
I definitely cannot reproduce the said FAIL (tried many times to do so as said
previously by testing just this specific case).
There is no indication of any fail/FAIL in the output, nor in the new report
(after deleting *.sum's before running that single test); the report is
practically empty:
########
LAST_UPDATED: Mon Jul 16 19:30:10 UTC 2018 (revision 262747)
Native configuration is x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
=== gcc tests ===
Running target unix
=== gcc Summary ===
/data/sw/src/cross/my_cross_build/SAV_x86_64-linux/build-gcc/gcc/xgcc version
9.0.0 20180716 (experimental) [trunk revision 262747] (GCC)
Compiler version: 9.0.0 20180716 (experimental) [trunk revision 262747] (GCC) gcc
Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
configure flags: --prefix=/sw/src/cross --target=x86_64-linux
--enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-werror --disable-gdb --disable-bootstrap
--disable-multilib
########
I'll analyse (again) the output, the log and the sum to be sure.
If all fails, I'll also re-do the said full test again.
