Re: bin/60016 (make(1) tests failing since sjg MaybeSubMake changes)

["Simon J. Gerraty via gnats" <gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR bin/60016; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg%juniper.net@localhost>
To: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>
Cc: <gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>, <netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost>,
        <gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost>, <martin%netbsd.org@localhost>,
        <campbell+netbsd%mumble.net@localhost>, <rillig%netbsd.org@localhost>, <sjg%juniper.net@localhost>
Subject: Re: bin/60016 (make(1) tests failing since sjg MaybeSubMake changes)
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2026 14:39:02 -0700

 Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost> wrote:
 > > This looks like a different issue:
 > >
 > > +sh: ./.make: not found
 > > +*** [indirect-open] Error code 127
 > 
 > Maybe, but they also report the bogus -J usage.
 
 The error in the test (opt-jobs-internal) which I quoted the above from,
 was a result of *not* producing the expected -J error.
 That's the purpose of the .make symlink; to trick make into not setting
 OP_SUBMAKE.
 
 That test failed because .make was missing.
 Which should not be possible if only opt-jobs-internal was running and
 only one instance of it was running.
 
 Hence the questions about the context
 
 > 
 > > are these tests being run in parallel?
 > 
 > Not sure what you mean. It is a regular
 > 
 >         cd /usr/tests && atf-run | atf-report
 
 Is that being launched from a makefile? if so, which one?
 
 The actual tests are run by tests/usr.bin/make/t_make.sh which will
 do so sequentially, and thus should not cause that particular
 failure.  But perhaps t_make.sh is being run more than once.
 
 > Both unexpected "make" test failures happened on all tests on different
 > machines I did run today (with at a glance identical failure output).
 
 Repeatability helps when it comes to triage ;-)