Am 12.09.2017 um 14:28 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: > On 12/09/2017 12:31, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Hm, does this mean that instead of ./check failing when a binary is > > missing, we try each test case now and each one fails with the same > > error message? > > > > *tries it out* > > > > Okay, it's already broken today because the strings are never empty but > > contain the name of the wrapper functions, but it's still bad behaviour. > > Instead of just telling me that the binary is missing like it used to > > work, I get tons of test case diffs. > > So the patch is still dead code, isn't it?
Yes. But instead of moving it to a place where this ugly failure mode becomes intentional, we should just fix the check and keep doing it once at the start of ./check. Kevin
