bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Dennis Clarke]

FYI : 

vanth $ uname -a 
Linux vanth 3.2.0-4-powerpc64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.39-2 ppc64 GNU/Linux
vanth $ cat /etc/debian_version 
7.0

Totals for this test run:
passes:                 34733
failures:               1
unexpected passes:      0
expected failures:      6
unresolved test cases:  568
untested test cases:    1
unsupported test cases: 9
errors:                 0

FAIL: check-guile
==================================
1 of 1 test failed
Please report to bug-guile@gnu.org
==================================


What info is needed for this ? 

Dennis 

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Andy Wingo]

On Wed 20 Mar 2013 00:40, Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> writes:

> FAIL: check-guile
> ==================================
> 1 of 1 test failed
> Please report to bug-guile@gnu.org
> ==================================
>
> What info is needed for this ? 

check-guile.log

-- 
http://wingolog.org/

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Dennis Clarke]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 101 bytes --]


> > What info is needed for this ? 
> 
> check-guile.log

OKay, seems reasonable .. see attached 



[-- Attachment #2: guile-2.0.7_3.2.0-4-powerpc64_check-guile.log.gz --]
[-- Type: application/x-gzip, Size: 186430 bytes --]

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello,

Thanks for the report.  The failure is:

  FAIL: gc.test: gc: Lexical vars are collectable

Unfortunately, this test exercises the garbage collector, and its
failure does not always indicate a problem.

Since this is the only GC-related failure here, I would ignore it.

So I’m closing the bug.

Thanks,
Ludo’.

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Marijn]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 22-03-13 13:48, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for the report.  The failure is:
> 
> FAIL: gc.test: gc: Lexical vars are collectable
> 
> Unfortunately, this test exercises the garbage collector, and its 
> failure does not always indicate a problem.
> 
> Since this is the only GC-related failure here, I would ignore it.
> 
> So I’m closing the bug.

Can I just add that a failing test that doesn't indicate a problem is
rather annoying. Can this specific test be removed or disabled if it
can't be improved?

Marijn

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlFMZ44ACgkQp/VmCx0OL2zqbwCeLL0Zoq9EC1Ki++5t7yCzrIOB
tXkAnROtz66CloHf3vQNBTiK0ZsCCFNU
=FecZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Mark H Weaver]

Marijn <hkBst@gentoo.org> writes:

> On 22-03-13 13:48, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the report.  The failure is:
>> 
>> FAIL: gc.test: gc: Lexical vars are collectable
>> 
>> Unfortunately, this test exercises the garbage collector, and its 
>> failure does not always indicate a problem.
>> 
>> Since this is the only GC-related failure here, I would ignore it.
>> 
>> So I’m closing the bug.
>
> Can I just add that a failing test that doesn't indicate a problem is
> rather annoying. Can this specific test be removed or disabled if it
> can't be improved?

I agree.  If we're going to ignore these failures (which seems
reasonable), then it should at least be downgraded to a warning,
and not cause the 'make check' to fail.  IMO anyway.

     Thanks,
       Mark

bug#14001: guile-2.0.7 : 1 of 1 test failed on Debian Linux 3.2.0-4-powerpc64

[Ludovic Courtès]

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> Marijn <hkBst@gentoo.org> writes:

[...]

>> Can I just add that a failing test that doesn't indicate a problem is
>> rather annoying. Can this specific test be removed or disabled if it
>> can't be improved?
>
> I agree.  If we're going to ignore these failures (which seems
> reasonable), then it should at least be downgraded to a warning,
> and not cause the 'make check' to fail.  IMO anyway.

Yes, agreed.  Fixed by commit 86fafc4.

Thanks,
Ludo’.