Re: rhel8 test failure confirmation?

On 02 Dec 2023 19:17, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 2, 2023, at 6:37 PM, Karl Berry wrote:
> > The best way to check if high-resolution 
> >     timestamps are available to autom4te is to have perl load 
> >     Autom4te::FileUtils and check if that also loaded Time::HiRes.
> >
> > The problem with that turned out to be that Time::HiRes got loaded from
> > other system modules, resulting in the test thinking that autom4te used
> > it when that wasn't actually the case. That's what happened in practice
> > with your patch.
> 
> Would it help if we added a command line option to autom4te that made it report whether it thought it could use high resolution timestamps? Versions of autom4te that didn't recognize this option should be conservatively assumed not to support them.

upthread somewhere Karl (iirc) threw out a bikeshed idea like --has=<keyword>.
i don't know if any of the autotools or GNU tools have such things that we
could duplicate to avoid bikeshedding too much.  that would make it work in
this case easily, and setup framework for future checks.
-mike

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ztO5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----