On Mon, 27 Jul 2026 at 16:16, Fabiano Rosas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: > > I'm not saying this patch is a bad idea, I'll likely use it too; > > I want to clarify what are the valid use cases the community sees > > here. Building pointless things clearly has a negative impact on > > resources and our time, but not testing changes also has. > > Perhaps we could add something to checkpatch that emits an error if > config-status has --disable-tests.
I think that's probably overkill. People who don't run tests are much more likely to be doing it by simply not running "make check" and "make check-functional" than by using this new --disable-tests configure option :-) I think if --disable-tests isn't the default then that's enough to mean that it only gets used for the situations where it matters to cut down that build time (like the bisection-test cases etc). (Also, checkpatch runs in a source tree and can't know about configure options, which are per-build-tree.) thanks -- PMM
