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

["Robert Elz via gnats" <gnats-admin%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

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

From: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
To: "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg%juniper.net@localhost>
Cc: Martin Husemann <martin%duskware.de@localhost>, 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
Subject: Re: bin/60016 (make(1) tests failing since sjg MaybeSubMake changes)
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 06:02:44 +0700

     Date:        Mon, 9 Mar 2026 14:39:02 -0700
     From:        "Simon J. Gerraty" <sjg%juniper.net@localhost>
     Message-ID:  <34773.1773092342%kaos.jnpr.net@localhost>
 
   | 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.
 
 ATF runs nothing in parallel, it runs one test after another.   If it
 happens to matter, ATF loves to sort things and run them in lexical order.
 But just one at a time.
 
 The tests themselves are just code however, and they can do whatever
 they need to do in order to achieve the result, and testing parallel
 make job execution would be an entirely reasonable thing to test.
 
 Whether the tests in question do any of that I have no idea (I stay
 as far away as I can from the make system and everything involved)
 but it is all in the test program itself (and any associated helper
 files it has) - those things are typically small enough to get at
 least a fair understanding of what they are doing fairly easily.
 
 kre