Problems with "make check"

[Mike Stump]

On Thursday, April 3, 2003, at 12:38 AM, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> But then, what's so bad about make -k check?
>
> One can forget the -k? ;-)
>
> Seriously, I believe I recall several reports/discussions on that here,
> and while it is definitely a user error, if we can somehow avoid it, 
> why
> not do that?

Let me state the obvious.  If the testsuite doesn't have any unexpected 
failures, it will return success.  libstdc++ used to not fail.  I think 
we should move to the point where unexpected errors on primary 
platforms won't be allowed to exist (48 rule imposed by a dispationate 
cronjob).

For example, uninstalled locales need to be detected, and tests that 
fail because of them, should be fixed to ignore that situation, or 
report untested.