Re: Smoke [5.9.4] 27938 FAIL(X) linux 2.6.15-20-386 [debian] (i686/1 cpu)
Op een mooie winterdag (Monday 24 April 2006 00:21),schreef Abe Timmerman: > Op een mooie winterdag (Sunday 23 April 2006 17:30),schreef Steve Peters: I am so sorry, I got you mixed up with the other Steve (Hay that is) and didn't look at the report. So I assumed it was windows. Please disregard my nonsense; you are quite right. > > [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) onlinux - 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 -- Nick> > Over to you, Jarkko ??? Jarkko> Urque. Hmm... I can't seem to find a patch in there anywhere. -- Nicholas Clark on p5p @ 2005-01-23
Re: Smoke [5.9.4] 27938 FAIL(X) linux 2.6.15-20-386 [debian] (i686/1 cpu)
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) > > onlinux - 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
Re: Smoke [5.9.4] 27938 FAIL(X) linux 2.6.15-20-386 [debian] (i686/1 cpu)
On 4/24/06, Abe Timmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will raise the question once again "Why don't we use TEST on mswin32?". Interesting question, especially in light of the fact that TEST doesnt seem to have any obvious Win32 no-no's, and in fact has Win32 specific support, so presumably somebody has at some point been using it. Yves -- perl -Mre=debug -e "/just|another|perl|hacker/"
Re: Smoke [5.9.4] 27938 FAIL(X) linux 2.6.15-20-386 [debian] (i686/1 cpu)
On 23/04/06, Steve Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 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? I think it should. If the order of tests is really "random", on can remove the numbering of the tests and only output "ok\n" or "not ok\n".
Re: Smoke [5.9.4] 27938 FAIL(X) linux 2.6.15-20-386 [debian] (i686/1 cpu)
[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) onlinux - 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) O = OK F = Failure(s), extended report at the bottom X = Failure(s) under TEST but not under harness ? = still running or test results not (yet) available Build failures during: - = unknown or N/A c = Configure, m = make, M = make (after miniperl), t = make test-prep 27938 Configuration (common) none --- - O O O O O O O O O O O O -Duse64bitint O O O O O O -Duselongdouble O O O O O O -Dusemorebits O O O O O O -Duseithreads O O O O O O -Duseithreads -Duse64bitint X O O O X O -Duseithreads -Duselongdouble O O O O O O -Duseithreads -Dusemorebits | | | | | +- LC_ALL = en_US.utf8 -DDEBUGGING | | | | +--- PERLIO = perlio -DDEBUGGING | | | +- PERLIO = stdio -DDEBUGGING | | +--- LC_ALL = en_US.utf8 | +- PERLIO = perlio +--- PERLIO = stdio Locally applied patches: SMOKE27938 Failures: (common-args) none [stdio] -Duseithreads -Duselongdouble Inconsistent test results (between TEST and harness): ../ext/threads/t/free.t.FAILED--expected test 18, saw test 19 [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? Steve Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED]
