> Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 10:26:03 +0100 > From: [email protected] (akhiezer) > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-6.2.0 - purpose of the -k parameter in make > -k check > > > From: Wayne Blaszczyk <[email protected]> > > Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 18:49:38 +1000 > > Subject: Re: [lfs-dev] 6.17. GCC-6.2.0 - purpose of the -k parameter in make > > -k check > > > > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 22:02 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > > > Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-08-30 at 14:45 +0200, Pierre Labastie wrote: > > > > > On 30/08/2016 11:28, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm curious on what the intent of having the -k parameter in make > > > > > > -k check. > > > > > > To this point in time I always thought it was to continue with the > > > > > > tests even > > > > > > after unexpected test failures. But after removing the -k, the > > > > > > only error I got early on was > > > > > > > > > > > > autogen -T ../../fixincludes/check.tpl > > > > > > ../../fixincludes/inclhack.def > > > > > > make[2]: autogen: Command not found > > > > > > > > > > > > which caused an early halt. > > > > > > With autogen installed, make check seemed to complete all the tests > > > > > > even though not all of them were successful. > > > > > We do not give any recipe for autogen, so it is assumed that it is > > > > > not installed, hence the "-k", to prevent "make check" from failing > > > > > early. > > > > > > > Yes, but should that not be explained in the text? i.e. Why we are > > > > doing it. > > > > > > We don't explain every option for every command. It should be fairly > > > easy > > > to 'man make': > > > > > > -k, --keep-going > > > Continue as much as possible after an error. While the > > > target that failed, and those that depend on it, cannot be remade, the > > > other dependencies of these targets can be processed all the same. > > > > > > -- Bruce > > > > > > > I'm not saying what option -k does, but why we are we doing it. man is not > > going to tell you why. If it's because autotools is not installed and it > > is a dependency for this target, then it should be > > stated rather than saying bypass any errors. I just thought it might be > > beneficial as a learning point. > > > > > I'd agree - at least broadly - with Wayne on this. > > > 'make -k' buries/mixes errors in the output: if the 'make -k' ultimately > fails, then that's a signal to backtrack to fix errors; but if the 'make > -k' completes, then how do you know what errors have been encountered > but continued past. > > > Because of that, & AAFK, although use of 'make -k' for tests/debugs is > fairly standard practice, it is usually considered to be potentially > 'dangerous' if you don't really know the code behaviour enough. > > > If the '-k' is to continue past the known, single issue re autogen, > then just say that: but how can you guarantee that that will be the > only error that has been skipped past; how do you instruct the user to > proceed if 'make -k' completes. > > > To just instruct folks to use 'make -k' is not really educational: what > errors might they be missing, is a reasonably intelligent question; > and the text doesn't comment on that. > > > Is there a way - e.g. some env-var - to do the make-check, without uisng > '-k', and allowing for autogen being not present. > > > I'll note also that gcc dev lists have some history over this > autogen/make-k issue. >
... although, I guess that '4.6. About the Test Suites' ( http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/7.10-rc1/chapter04/abouttestsuites.html ) does cover things ok already. akh -- -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
