On 4/27/06, Andy Dougherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 27 Apr 2006, jerry gay wrote: > > > On 4/27/06, Ron Blaschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here's another round of test results on my box. I've also added the > > > details for the tests that failed. The C<t/pmc/env.t> and > > > <t/pmc/complex.t> are not unexpected on Windows. > > > > > > > > Failed Test Stat Wstat Total Fail Failed List of Failed > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > t/doc/pod.t 3 768 1166 3 0.26% 24 738 820 > > fixed, r12443. > > > > > t/op/calling.t 1 256 92 1 1.09% 91 > > > t/pmc/complex.t 1 256 53 1 1.89% 33 > > > t/pmc/env.t 2 512 12 2 16.67% 9-10 > > > t/pmc/objects.t 1 256 73 1 1.37% 73 > > > these are all expected, at the moment. > > They are? Is the list of "expected failuers" anywhere obvious? I don't > see it anywhere obvious either in the source or in the recent > perl6-internals archives. Perhaps I've missed it somewhere. > ron has reported failing env (#37301) and complex tests before (recent list mail,) and they appear regularly on the smoke server (http://smoke.parrotcode.org/smoke).
calling is failing due to a test checked in by patrick (:flat and named params, iirc,) and objects is failing due to an as-yet-unimplemented opcode (part of PDD21 changes, iirc.) both of these should be resolved when leo (or any other C coder with tuits) up to fixing them. i'm having trouble finding tickets for these others, but that may be because my network connection is horribly inconsistent at the moment, and not because they don't exist. ~jerry
