Taylor R Campbell writes:
> What you've done is fine, but what I do -- and what I suggest everyone
> do, though we don't have any mandatory rule -- is:
Yeah, I realize that filing a PR and making the test xfail would be
nicer, but my question -- which you answered was about whether the
corner-cu
> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2024 09:20:42 -0400
> From: Greg Troxel
>
> I have found a serious bug in reqmuo(3), and a fix in FreeBSD, validated
> by regression tests in proj and a hand-written test. The problem exists
> in current and 10, and surely in 9 but I haven't checked.
>
> We currently have no
Am 20.09.2024 um 14:44 schrieb Greg Troxel:
> Roland Illig writes:
>
>> The first commit demonstrates the buggy state by having a test that
>> technically succeeds but has lots of FIXME comments in all the places
>> that are wrong, already stating what is expected after the bugfix.
>>
>> The secon
Roland Illig writes:
> The first commit demonstrates the buggy state by having a test that
> technically succeeds but has lots of FIXME comments in all the places
> that are wrong, already stating what is expected after the bugfix.
>
> The second commit fixes one of the bugs and updates the tests
Am 19.09.2024 um 15:20 schrieb Greg Troxel:
> We currently have no remquo test. I've written one, stealing from
> tests/lib/libm/t_sin, and it shows some failing output.
When I'm in such a situation, I usually do a two-commit approach:
The first commit demonstrates the buggy state by having a te
On Thu, Sep 19, 2024 at 09:20:42AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> Is this reasonable? It will show an increased failing test for a bit,
> but the test really does fail, and my impression is that the xfail
> scheme is about keeping known-failing not-getting-fixed tests from
> obscuring "we just had a
