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.