On 3/18/24 07:40, Chet Ramey wrote:
Thanks for the patches. They introduce a number of regressions, some due
to the different overflow handling; several not. I urge everyone who
submits non-trivial patches to run the test suite (`make tests') on their
patched versions before sending them in.
I ran "make check" (equivalent to "make tests") and it looked to me like
all the tests passed. The test output chattered a lot, and contained a
lot of 'diff output', but then it did the same thing without the
proposed patches and as far as I could tell nothing was unusual about
the chatter. And since "make tests" exited with zero status, the tests
appeared successful to me. Is there some documentation for how to
interpret "make tests" output?
One thing that caused trouble for me is that I could not use the
following shell command on my terminal:
$ make tests >:tests.log 2>&1 < /dev/null &
because the tests would at some point stop in the background. Apparently
some of the tests require access to the controlling terminal, which is a
problem if you're trying to run them in the background. (Perhaps that
explains why the tests succeeded for me but failed for you.)
I see that you're part way towards improving integer overflow checking,
as you've added stdckdint.in.h to the devel branch but are not using
stdckint.h yet. If there's any further way I can help to get integer
overflow checking to work as well as my proposed patches tried to do,
please let me know.
