[PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure

[Eoff, Ullysses A]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: wayland-devel-
>bounces+ullysses.a.eoff=intel.com at lists.freedesktop.org [mailto:wayland-
>devel-bounces+ullysses.a.eoff=intel.com at lists.freedesktop.org] On Behalf
>Of Pekka Paalanen
>Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:30 AM
>To: wayland-devel at lists.freedesktop.org
>Cc: Pekka Paalanen
>Subject: [PATCH weston] tests: make signal other than ABRT a hard failure
>
>We handle FAIL_TEST tests by simply inverting the success flag. The
>problem with this is, that if a FAIL_TEST fails by a SIGSEGV, it will be
>interpreted as passed. However, no code should ever cause a SEGV, or any
>other signal than ABRT. And even ABRT only in the case of an assert()
>that is meant to fail. We would probably need more sophistication for the
>FAIL_TEST cases.
>
>For now, just interpret any other signal than ABRT as a hard failure,
>regardless whether it is a TEST or FAIL_TEST. At least segfaults do not
>cause false passes anymore.
>

We use the same test-runner and FAIL_TEST logic in Wayland tests, too.
This change should be applied there as well.

U. Artie