Matthew Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> So what do you propose to do? Fail the build if there are test failures? That > > Well, there's a reason that test suites exist, you know. If your > tests are failing spuriously, then it's time to fix the tests, not > ignore them.
I'm sure the gcc developers, both Debian and upstream, are keen to see your patches to fix all the testsuite failures on our 11+ architectures. >> would pretty much ensure that the package never, ever builds. And > > Well, if it's always broken, we don't really want it, do we? If 'failing tests == broken' then we wouldn't have a working compiler for any architecture and/or for any release. I think there's a small flaw in your logic. -- James
