Validate failures

[José Pedro Magalhães]

For what it's worth, I got these failures with sh validate --fast in HEAD
this morning:

Unexpected failures:
   ../../libraries/directory/tests  getPermissions001 [bad stdout] (normal)
   perf/compiler                    T1969 [stat too good] (normal)
   perf/compiler                    T3294 [stat not good enough] (normal)
   perf/compiler                    T4801 [stat not good enough] (normal)
   perf/compiler                    T783 [stat not good enough] (normal)
   perf/haddock                     haddock.Cabal [stat not good enough]
(normal)
   perf/haddock                     haddock.base [stat not good enough]
(normal)
   perf/haddock                     haddock.compiler [stat too good]
(normal)
   perf/should_run                  Conversions [stat not good enough]
(normal)
   perf/should_run                  T4830 [stat too good] (normal)
   perf/should_run                  T5536 [stat too good] (normal)
   perf/should_run                  T7436 [stat too good] (normal)
   perf/should_run                  lazy-bs-alloc [stat too good] (normal)
   simplCore/should_compile         T3717 [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
   simplCore/should_compile         T4908 [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
   simplCore/should_compile         T7360 [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
   simplCore/should_compile         spec-inline [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
   typecheck/should_compile         holes [stderr mismatch] (normal)
   typecheck/should_compile         holes2 [stderr mismatch] (normal)
   typecheck/should_compile         holes3 [stderr mismatch] (normal)


But then again, looking at it, I'm not sure what to do about the perf ones.
Should
we be more flexible in the expected result, or should I have fewer
expectations
about my machine being representative?

And getPermissions001 might or might not have to do with the fact that this
is on
a virtual machine...


Cheers,
Pedro

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:13 AM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:

> These are still failing, BTW.
>
> Cheers,
>         Simon
>
>
> On 01/02/13 14:51, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:
>
>> yes, see earlier email on this. almost certainly my fault, will fix Monday
>>
>> |  -----Original Message-----
>> |  From: ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@**
>> haskell.org <ghc-devs-bounces at haskell.org>] On
>> |  Behalf Of Simon Marlow
>> |  Sent: 01 February 2013 08:57
>> |  To: ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> |  Subject: Validate failures
>> |
>> |  A batch of testsuite failures this morning - forgotten push to
>> testsuite
>> |  perhaps?
>> |
>> |  Unexpected failures:
>> |      perf/should_run           T5113 [stat not good enough] (normal)
>> |      simplCore/should_compile  T3717 [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
>> |      simplCore/should_compile  T4908 [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
>> |      simplCore/should_compile  T7360 [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
>> |      simplCore/should_compile  spec-inline [stderr mismatch] (optasm)
>> |      typecheck/should_compile  holes [stderr mismatch] (normal)
>> |      typecheck/should_compile  holes2 [stderr mismatch] (normal)
>> |      typecheck/should_compile  holes3 [stderr mismatch] (normal)
>> |
>> |  Cheers,
>> |       Simon
>> |
>> |  ______________________________**_________________
>> |  ghc-devs mailing list
>> |  ghc-devs at haskell.org
>> |  http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
>>
>>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/**mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs<http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/ghc-devs/attachments/20130207/92b57a9e/attachment.htm>