Op een mooie winterdag (Sunday 23 April 2006 17:30),schreef Steve Peters:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Automated smoke report for 5.9.4 patch 27938
> > kirk: Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.00GHz (GenuineIntel 1994MHz) (i686/1 cpu)
> > on linux - 2.6.15-20-386 [debian]
> > using cc version 4.0.3 (Ubuntu 4.0.3-1ubuntu5)
> > smoketime 17 hours 54 minutes (average 1 hour 7 minutes)
> >
> > Summary: FAIL(X)
[snip]
> > [perlio] -DDEBUGGING -Duseithreads -Duselongdouble
> > Inconsistent test results (between TEST and harness):
> > ../ext/threads/t/free.t.................FAILED--expected test 15, saw
> > test 16
>
> What's happening above is that TEST cannot handle seeing tests come in
> out of order, while harness can. I'm scanning Test::Harness::TAP a bit,
> but it seems to be unspecified whether this is OK or not. Should TEST
> care if the tests are reported out of order?
Windows makefiles don't have a "test_harness:" target and the test/test-notty/
_test targets all use harness, so no need to blame TEST.
I will raise the question once again "Why don't we use TEST on mswin32?".
(I should probably change that message for mswin32 while Test::Smoke is using
harness for both runs)
Good luck,
Abe
--
I admit that there was too much waving the chicken and too little looking at
the chicken's genome in that change.
-- Jarkko Hietaniemi on p5p @ 2003-08-11
