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) on linux - 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
