GNU bug report logs - #10434
FAIL: depmod.tap 50 - tru64 [long VPATH] make & remake

Previous Next

Package: automake;

Reported by: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>

Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:02:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Tags: patch

Done: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

Full log


View this message in rfc822 format

From: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>
To: Stefano Lattarini <stefano.lattarini <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Rosin <peda <at> lysator.liu.se>, automake-patches <at> gnu.org, 10434 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#10434: FAIL: depmod.tap 50 - tru64 [long VPATH] make & remake
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:27:34 +0100
Stefano Lattarini wrote:

> On 02/02/2012 11:41 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> Stefano Lattarini skrev 2012-02-02 22:45:
>>> Reference:
>>>   <http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=10434>
>>>
>>> OK, the attached patch fixes the two spurious failures of GCC forced into
>>> Tru64 mode.  About time I'd say.
>>>
>>> But I'm not sure whether we should apply this without first testing it
>>> on a real Tru64 compiler, lest we cause a real regression just to fix a
>>> spurious failure.  Thoughts?
>>
>> I just had a look at that test, and it seems like a very crappy test
>> to me.  I had some failures with cl, but figured it was the same as
>> these Tru64 failures that I had seen flying past, and put it all on
>> the back burner.  But the test is destined to cause troubles if IIUC.
>>
>> It's just dead wrong to assume that feeding -M or -xM to the compiler
>> (or whatever other random stuff depcomp might do) and not get an error
>> is the same as dependencies magically appearing.  Or do I read the
>> test wrong?  Please tell me that I do!
>>
> Unfortunately you read the test right.  And in hindsight I must agree
> with you: its approach is fundamentally flawed.
>
> So, what about the attached patch, that overhauls (and hopefully improve)
> the coverage for automatic dependency tracking support?  It is probably
> possible to improve the patch even more (esp. w.r.t. optimizations for
> speed), but that can be left for follow-up changes IMHO.
>
> I will push (to master) in 72 hours if there is no objection by then.
...
> Subject: [PATCH] tests: improve and rework tests on dependency tracking
>
> Fixes automake bug#10434.  Suggestion by Peter Rosin.
>
> The 'depcomp.tap' test case worked by trying to unconditionally
> force the compiler in use by the testsuite to use, one by one, *all*
> the dependency modes known by the 'depcomp' script, and, for each
> such forced mode that was compatible enough with said compiler not
> to cause breakage in the basic compilation rules, checking that it
> was *also* good enough not to break remake rules in VPATH builds.
>
> This seemed a good approach when this test was first introduced, as
> it apparently increased coverage for the less used and less tested
> dependency-tracking modes.  But in the log run it turned out the
> approach was actually in part to brittle, causing some annoying

s/to/too/

FYI, with this, all tests pass on Fedora 16.
I haven't reviewed the actual content.




This bug report was last modified 13 years and 200 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.