[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse |
Date: |
Sun, 05 May 2013 20:49:23 +0200 |
On 05/05/2013 05:30 PM, Paul Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 11:11 +0200, Stefano Lattarini wrote:
>> Sorry to add this only now, but I realized the failure is only
>> reproducible if I run the testsuite with "make -j", as in "make -j8
>> check; and even in that case, the failure is racy. With a bare "make
>> check", things work for me as well. On the other hand, increasing the
>> parallelism even more, other tests start to fail as well:
>
> The test suite definitely cannot be run in parallel.
>
I realize that (and it's no issue, considering how fast the make testsuite
is); but I often run a "make -j8 check" just after running "./configure"
(requires less typing than "make -j8 && make check"), and that's where
things broke down.
> However this
> should not happen (and does not happen in my environment when I run the
> commands above) because the test harness cleans out the environment,
> which will remove any of the MAKEFLAGS or MFLAGS variables that might
> tell the make to run in parallel when it's not expected.
>
> Can you examine your shell configuration files etc. to see if they're
> setting MAKEFLAGS or MFLAGS?
>
Definitely not.
> Although if that's true then the tests should fail all the time.
>
> Can you verify that there don't seem to be any leftover test files in
> the tests directory? Sometimes if something doesn't get cleaned up
> correctly that can cause future builds to fail. However if that were
> the case then "make check" without -j would fail as well.
>
> I don't have an explanation for this.
>
It's no big deal; I can just run "make check" and live happily. Also,
I don't have the mental bandwidth to try to debug this ATM, sorry.
Let's return to the issue if I get bitten again. Or maybe you'll manage
to reproduce the issue somehow.
In the meantime, thanks for your help and your attention,
Stefano
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), (continued)
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/03
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/05/04
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Paul Smith, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Stefano Lattarini, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, Paul Smith, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse,
Stefano Lattarini <=
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse, David Boyce, 2013/05/05
- Message not available
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Paul Smith, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/05
- Re: possible solution for -Otarget recurse (was: Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option), Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/06
- Re: Some serious issues with the new -O option, Eli Zaretskii, 2013/05/01