GNU bug report logs - #24402
25.1.50; testcover-start breaks should-error

Previous Next

Full log

View this message in rfc822 format

From: npostavs <at> users.sourceforge.net
To: Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com>
Cc: Gemini Lasswell <gazally <at> runbox.com>, Tino Calancha <tino.calancha <at> gmail.com>, 24402 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: bug#24402: should-error doesn't catch all errors
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:57:14 -0400

Alex <agrambot <at> gmail.com> writes:

> The segfault appears to have been because I didn't wipe out the elc
> files when testing different implementations.

I suspect getting a segfault might indicate an actual bug somewhere.

> I spent a lot longer than I'd like to admit finding this out. Is there a
> reason why "make clean" in the test directory doesn't wipe out elc
> files? I don't understand why there's a separate bootstrap-clean that
> does this. Can this and TEST_LOAD_EL please be documented in the test
> README?

I think it was basically copied from the other Makefiles, where cleaning
all elc files would mean a very long subsequent compilation.  It might
make sense to break the pattern for the test/ subdirectory though.

> Anyway, I got everything back in order. Sadly, there's a couple extra
> tests that now fail for me in the patch that *doesn't* expand inline
> functions, and these don't fail for me in a clean master. They are in
> eieio-tests (23 and 24).

I'm seeing eieio-tests failing also in master.  This seems to be an
actual bug, in the definition of `cl-typep' I think.  I've opened a new
bug for this (Bug#27718).

> With the inline expansion, I also get some errors in ert-tests. All of
> the errors, with the exception of subr-tests error, seem to be from
> cl-defstruct and cl-typep (which is defined by define-inline).
>
> Do you have any ideas? There should be 5 unexpected errors without the
> inline expansion, and 6 errors with it. Note that all tests pass in both
> cases without "TEST_LOAD_EL=no".
>
> If it's easy to fix the eieio tests and not the other ones, then it
> might be better to leave the inline-function expansion out for now.

I have a fix for the subr-tests failed, as for the others, I don't know
enough about the compilation process to untangle it yet.  I think we
should just leave the inline-function expansion part out for now, at
which point I believe your patch won't be making anything worse, so it
should be okay to install.

Previous Next

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