On 11/09/20 13:05, Max Reitz wrote:
> On closer inspection it seems like it’s because of the
> “build_by_default: false”, which seems like a rather conscious decision.
> Was I only lucky that the socket_scm_helper was built by default so
> far? Should I have explicitly built it all this time?
Ye
On 11/09/20 12:58, Max Reitz wrote:
> It seems like the socket_scm_helper is now only built as a dependency of
> check-block, instead of all the time. That’s a bit of a shame.
> (The obvious workaround of course is to specifically build the
> socket_scm_helper, but that doesn’t seem right.)
Or ju
On 11.09.20 12:58, Max Reitz wrote:
> On 06.09.20 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
>> we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
>> there will be no sign of progress. So for lack of a better option
>> just move
On 06.09.20 19:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
> we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
> there will be no sign of progress. So for lack of a better option
> just move the invocation of the test back to Makefil
check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
there will be no sign of progress. So for lack of a better option
just move the invocation of the test back to Makefile rules.
As a side effect, this will also fix "
