This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: What is consensus?


On Thu, 5 Apr 2012, Carlos O'Donell wrote:

> The more controversial point I make here is that we probably need to
> take a hard stand on build/testsuite regressions and simply revert any
> patches that break or regress the testsuite.

The way the libm tests work it's unavoidable that a newly added test will 
typically fail on each architecture until the ulps baselines are updated, 
since they are architecture-specific.  I don't think we should expect 
people to test on all architectures; we should state in such cases that 
ulps updates that do not add unduly large ulps entries (any ulps at all 
for functions that should be exact) are considered obvious.  We should 
also be liberal about conditioning out tests for particular floating-point 
formats etc. if they show up bugs (always with a comment added pointing to 
the bug in Bugzilla), for those cases where they show up an 
architecture-specific problem that isn't being immediately fixed.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]