Re: Does glibc has complete test coverage?

[<tomas@tuxteam.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1130 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 09:13:39PM -0400, Mike Frysinger via Libc-help wrote:
> On 23 Mar 2021 17:02, Jeffrey Walton wrote:

[...]

> > Test cases are monkey work that should be delegated. When delegation
> > does not occur it usually points back to shortcomings in project
> > management.

I don't know whether Jeffrey is trying to insult monkeys here...
or interns ;-P

> many are good for delegation, but that doesn't mean quantity is the same as
> quality.  if we could get 100% coverage but it took weeks to run, but 90%
> coverage took <1 hour, is that 10% worth it ?  this isn't exactly hyperbole
> when we have targets that run on simulators or FPGAs and have <<1GHz CPUs.

That's the point. On paper, test coverage sounds good (and tests, of
course are a worthy goal). Reality is harsh, doubly so in the case of
an OS abstraction layer like libc. Just imagine the test harness you'd
need to cover 100% of the stuff lying /below/ libc. Emulating that is
possible (up to some point), but Someone(TM) gotta do it.

So, Peng Yu, Jeffrey -- I think I read this already twice in this thread:
"patches welcome" :-)

Cheers
 - t

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]