On 12/09/2017 14:51, Kevin Wolf wrote: > Am 12.09.2017 um 14:28 hat Paolo Bonzini geschrieben: >> On 12/09/2017 12:31, Kevin Wolf wrote: >>> Hm, does this mean that instead of ./check failing when a binary is >>> missing, we try each test case now and each one fails with the same >>> error message? >>> >>> *tries it out* >>> >>> Okay, it's already broken today because the strings are never empty but >>> contain the name of the wrapper functions, but it's still bad behaviour. >>> Instead of just telling me that the binary is missing like it used to >>> work, I get tons of test case diffs. >> >> So the patch is still dead code, isn't it? > > Yes. But instead of moving it to a place where this ugly failure mode > becomes intentional, we should just fix the check and keep doing it once > at the start of ./check.
Ok, that is better indeed. Paolo
