Test suite regressions

Mon Mar 19 13:37:00 GMT 2001

Mark> But running make check-target-libjava takes a very long time (a
Mark> lot of WARNING: program timed out messages).
That's a known problem. I think someone is working on it.
Mark> # of expected passes 1221
Mark> # of unexpected failures 164
Mark> # of unexpected successes 81
Mark> # of expected failures 254

Mark> That doesn't look good :( What are the 'correct' numbers?
Before the latest changes to the branch I had 2 FAILs. That really
should be 0, and that's something I'll fix (probably by simply adding
some xfails) when I get a chance.
Mark> Does all this mean that I have to set up a i586 machine with a
Mark> working branch before commiting? I do have a working trunk on
Mark> i586, but also setting up a working branch does mean a lot of
Mark> extra disk space. (Note almost all my commits are simple libgcj
Mark> runtime class changes, I don't work on the compiler.)
If you're working on the runtime then in general there won't be a test
for any bug you might fix. Ideally every library bug fix would be
accompanied by a new Mauve regression test. FWIW I haven't been
running against Mauve when I do my testing.
Mostly though I am concerned about compiler changes. For the sorts of
library changes that will go on the 3.0 branch, we'll almost always
know the consequences. Changes to the compiler seem to be a lot
touchier.
Tom