[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 22:16:12 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Should we add --make_check to --list=hidden-options?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 09:20:33AM -0500, jfoug wrote:
> make_check should be documented as a hidden option (or simply removed). It
> has been hidden for a long time (did not work for a long time also, but was
> fixed a couple years back). It really is deprecated by both -test=0 (the
> =0 part), and by the TS. Test used to have no optional time value, thus
> would run full benchmark timings each time, no matter what.
I disagree that --make_check is deprecated - at least not in the core
tree. It also was never broken in the core tree - or Owl package builds
would fail, which I'd notice before making a John release. It is news
to me that it was broken in jumbo, but apparently no one cared if so.
"make check" and thus --make_check is used from Owl's john.spec to test
the various binaries that are built from there, with runtime fallback
suppressed - e.g., when testing the SSE2 binary on a compiling machine
that only has MMX, we get a "Sorry, SSE2 is required" in the build log,
yet the build continues (with the SSE2 binary remaining untested, but
packaged as if it passed the test).
--test=0 is not exactly the same. It does not suppress the fallback,
and if the proper CPU is not detected and there's no fallback (or if it
fails), then --test=0's exit code would be 1, whereas --make_check's
would be 0.
As to adding it to --list=hidden-options, I don't mind, but I see little
need. It is meant to be used by "make check" only.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
