This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:43:11 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove symlinks created in argv0-symlink.exp and general cleanup
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1438287227-11303-1-git-send-email-simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com> <55BF7962 dot 3060106 at redhat dot com> <55BF85BC dot 8040102 at ericsson dot com> <55BF9811 dot 50202 at redhat dot com> <20150804172110 dot GI4777 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22TsqOiq6AM9h_0A-a7rp=dX6ds-E8K21goX+AK5UMjadA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150811195814 dot GB22245 at adacore dot com>
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
>> I don't have a strong opinion on making in-tree testing unsupported,
>> but I do have a strong opinion on another thing that can make the
>> in-tree testing issue moot.
>>
>> Let's remove all of testsuite/*/Makefile.in, they're always
>> out of date anyway (i.e., no one updates gdb.foo/Makefile.in to
>> remove binaries added by new tests),
>> and except for "make clean" aren't really used for anything.
>> The "make clean" in testsuite/Makefile.in can just "rm -rf foo bar ..."
>> [where "foo bar ..." are *not* the gdb.* testsuite dirs, but rather
>> the outputs,etc. directories of check-parallel]
>> IOW, testing would create the needed directories on the fly,
>> even in serial mode,
>> and to simplify "make clean" they'd always be put in a fixed
>> subdir of testsuite (just like check-parallel does now).
>
> I think some of these issues are worth improving independently
> of whether the build was in-tree or not.
>
>> As for whether to always have one directory per test
>> (in serial and parallel modes), that *could* be treated as a separate
>> issue, but if it reduces complexity by doing the same thing
>> for serial and parallel then great.
>> [And while in-tree testing could still be unsupported,
>> I think(!) the current issue with it would be fixed.]
>
> If in-tree build happens to work without effort from us, then
> OK to continue having it. But I don't think treating as bugs
> issues that are specific to in-tree building & testing would
> be the best investment of our resources.
>
> I tried to remember why people thought in-tree building is more
> convenient for them, and couldn't remember of any reason other
> than convenience. But is it really more convenient? Are there
> other reasons I forgot about?
FAOD, I'm *not* advocating for keeping in-tree builds working.
I never do them myself so I really have no direct interest in whether
it works or not. But, if something I want to do anyway happens
to improve life for someone else, then I'm ok with that.