Recent 4.1 breakage...

[Paolo Carlini]

Loren James Rittle wrote:

>In article <446CFED6.1050704@suse.de>, Paolo Carlini<pcarlini@suse.de> writes:
>
>>Humpf, I'm sorry, in the meanwhile I was testing the below, and I would 
>>be rather happy with it ;) I'm simply putting to good use our VERIFY 
>>machinery (*finally*, some people would add, I'm sure). The patch is 
>>very safe, basically the tests themselves are unchanged, and could still 
>>be run with _GLIBCXX_ASSERT defined, in case of need. Is it fine with you?
>>    
>>
>Yea, of course.  There is still an open issue (in my mind) that VERIFY
>status of a child process is not signaled to the test harness.
>  
>
Yes, you are 100% right. Actually, some (most) of those testcases 
originally didn't have any VERIFY in the child and the real tests are 
those of the parents, in the child we have got only a sanity check. I 
think we can live with that... (of course, if, while debugging one 
defines _GLIBCXX_ASSERT then those checks are performed too).

Thanks,
Paolo.