Perhaps you should consider a real operating system?
Downvoted because of that childish sentence.
| [reply] |
So, according to you, every builder of perl -- including sysops, biogeneticists, mom&pop commercial websites et. al -- should be sufficiently skilled, interested and dedicated to the furtherance of Perldom to be able to debug the perl core.
And, every perl user should use Linux -- not Windows or FreeBSD or Android --
The only stupid things in this thread are your jaundiced, small-minded, naiveté and your smug sense of sKrIpT kIdDy 'L33tness.
It may serve your purpose and ego to spend your time groveling around in the guts of perl trying to resolve the causes of proforma messages from pointless tests; but some of us have real work to be getting on with. Perl is a means to our ends; not and end of itself.
Your subcultural myopia is astonishing. This is (some of*) what a perfectly functional, Windows build & test outputs:
(*There was much more; along with some long thought through reasoned argument; but PM truncated it, and I'm too pissed off to try and re-create it.)
| [reply]
[d/l] |
What a bunch of bloviating blather.
-
The OP asked what to do about a specific failing test that he had "somehow" managed to spot.
-
An anonymous poster told him to ignore it.
-
I said that was stupid advice and urged the OP to investigate the reason for failing tests.
-
You chimed in and stated that you have never been able to build Perl without errors, and said that there's no point in investigating failing tests because no one ever fixes the reason for them.
-
I countered that that was more bollocks.
Posting hundreds of lines of output from what you state was a successful Perl build (your first? congrats!) doesn't really do anything to address the OP's question though, does it?
The way forward always starts with a minimal test.
| [reply] |
...doesn't really do anything to address the OP's question though, does it? Does your generic "dont ignore failing tests" rant address the OP's question?
OP asked us what to do, he doesn't know, so he asked, and got a direct answer, ignore it
Room was left for other options
BrowserUks reply reaffirms the suggestion to ignore it, a suggestion you reflexively marked as terrible
Its like you buy a new air conditioner,
there is a weird message on the screen
but you can see temperature displayed and change/set the temperature you want,
the air conditioner cools the room and stops when reaches target temperature,
timer funciton works,
dehumidifier mode works,
fan only mode works,
all the buttons do what they're supposed to do,
decal is crooked and there is sometimes a weird message on the display
Why should the OP look inside air conditioner to investigate one weird message, air conditioner is doing everything is supposed to do ? Even if the OP was a mechanic or an air conditioner technician, what is the incentive to investigate other than boredom? Frankly I'd like to see more logo rants than this noise
| [reply] |
Test Summary Report
-------------------
comp/multiline.t (Wstat
+: 0 Tests: 6 Failed: 2)
Failed tests: 5-6
io/dup.t (Wstat
+: 0 Tests: 23 Failed: 0)
Parse errors: Tests out of sequence. Found (8) but expected (2)
Tests out of sequence. Found (9) but expected (3)
Tests out of sequence. Found (10) but expected (4)
Tests out of sequence. Found (11) but expected (5)
Tests out of sequence. Found (12) but expected (6)
Displayed the first 5 of 23 TAP syntax errors.
Re-run prove with the -p option to see them all.
../cpan/Win32/t/GetShortPathName.t (Wstat
+: 0 Tests: 5 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 2
../cpan/Win32/t/Unicode.t (Wstat
+: 0 Tests: 11 Failed: 8)
Failed tests: 1-3, 5, 8-11
Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 12 tests but ran 11.
../dist/IO/t/io_dup.t (Wstat
+: 0 Tests: 2 Failed: 0)
Parse errors: Tests out of sequence. Found (6) but expected (2)
Bad plan. You planned 6 tests but ran 2.
../dist/IO/t/io_sock.t (Wstat
+: 13824 Tests: 25 Failed: 1)
Failed test: 25
Non-zero exit status: 54
Parse errors: Bad plan. You planned 26 tests but ran 25.
Files=2394, Tests=683435, 2113 wallclock secs (118.55 usr + 8.94 sys
+= 127.49 CPU)
Result: FAIL
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '..\perl.exe' : return code '0xc'
Stop.
As for "a bunch of bloviating blather": you are the master. I bow to your vexpertise.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply]
[d/l] |