bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-05 Thread Stefano Lattarini
tags 7849 patch close 7849 thanks On 01/05/2012 10:53 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-05 09:38: >> Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Looks good, modulo a couple of nits >> below. Feel free to push to master when they have been addressed. > > Pushed with nits addressed. I

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-05 Thread Peter Rosin
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-05 09:38: > Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Looks good, modulo a couple of nits > below. Feel free to push to master when they have been addressed. Pushed with nits addressed. I'm not sure about the strange/strangely thing either, but strangely seems safer so...

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-05 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Peter, thanks for the patch. Looks good, modulo a couple of nits below. Feel free to push to master when they have been addressed. On 01/05/2012 01:35 AM, Peter Rosin wrote: > > From 27100f0b94f8e38e8bd30c27277d7ad4e9f4dd1a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Peter Rosin > Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-04 Thread Peter Rosin
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-04 21:43: > Hi Peter, thanks for the super-quick feedback. > > On 01/04/2012 03:17 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: >> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-04 13:24: >>> (Me rummaging in older bug reports ...) >>> >>> Reference: >>>

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-04 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Peter, thanks for the super-quick feedback. On 01/04/2012 03:17 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-04 13:24: >> (Me rummaging in older bug reports ...) >> >> Reference: >> >> >> On 01/16/2011 09:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues w

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-04 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On 01/04/2012 03:35 PM, Peter Rosin wrote: > Peter Rosin skrev 2012-01-04 15:17: >>mkdir "./$test_string" || { >> skip_ -r "mkdir failed" "$test_name in builddir" >> skip_ -r "mkdir failed" "$test_name in destdir" > > BTW, what's with the -r in the above "skip_"s? > It is to give th

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-04 Thread Peter Rosin
Peter Rosin skrev 2012-01-04 15:17: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-04 13:24: >> (Me rummaging in older bug reports ...) >> >> Reference: >> >> >> On 01/16/2011 09:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> There are a number of new failures since the

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-04 Thread Peter Rosin
Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-01-04 13:24: > (Me rummaging in older bug reports ...) > > Reference: > > > On 01/16/2011 09:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> There are a number of new failures since the splitup of instspc.test. >> Most seem to st

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2012-01-04 Thread Stefano Lattarini
(Me rummaging in older bug reports ...) Reference: On 01/16/2011 09:46 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > There are a number of new failures since the splitup of instspc.test. > Most seem to stem from increased coverage. Rather than putting each >

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2011-02-03 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 09:46:26AM CET: > On Cygwin, instspc-dotdotdot-build.test fails because executing a COFF > binary in a directory named '...' fails (causing the "compiler works" > test to fail at configure time): > > $ mkdir ... > $ cd ... > $ cp /usr/bin/ls.exe . >

bug#7849: new instspc* test failures

2011-01-16 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
There are a number of new failures since the splitup of instspc.test. Most seem to stem from increased coverage. Rather than putting each failure in a different PR, I'm listing a number of them here; we can still split things out further later if that proves necessary. On MinGW, instspc-carriage