From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George France To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , drow@mvista.com Cc: clp@iol.unh.edu, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: exit status of 'make check' Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 22:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: <01112601174403.05740@shadowfax.middleearth> References: <200111260510.XAA27776@duracef.shout.net> X-SW-Source: 2001-11/msg00251.html Message-ID: <20011125222100.aTTo61SYiDm-BcRhW-JRs5MizZixAVPVv9fPQbE9kNY@z> On Monday 26 November 2001 00:10, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > I agree with Daniel here, but from a different point of view. > > It would be nice if the exit status was, for example: > > 0 no results are ERROR, WARNING, or FAIL > 1 no results are ERROR or WARNING; some results are FAIL > 2 some results are ERROR or WARNING > 3 the test harness did not run well enough to generate results > (e.g. runtest not found). > > (or something like that) This makes good sense to me. :-) > > To achieve this result, someone would have to: design a set of exit > statuses, build consensus for it among several user communities, and submit > patches to tools like dejagnu. > > That's a lot of work. Agreed. > For the same amount of work, one could implement > other useful features in the test machinery and in the test suite itself. > For instance, I would like to have ERRORs and WARNINGs reported with the > test script filename in them, just like FAILs are. I would like to see both implemented. I just need about 3 more hours in each day to work on such a project. I hope to have some time next week to look into this matter further. > I do sympathize that the exit status is imprecise and that this can > interfere with large-scale automation. > Thank you. Best Regards, --George