This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [2.20] [2/6] Generate .test-result files for tests with special rules


On Mon, 10 Feb 2014, Brooks Moses wrote:

> > * Should all the tests generating output files not named
> >    <something>.out be changed (in a separate patch) to use the .out
> >    naming convention?
> 
> IMO, yes.  Conventions like this are a useful step towards a system that can
> download them from a remote target, when we eventually get there.

I have a followup question here:

Suppose we make all tests use <something>.out.  Then for most purposes we 
don't actually need the tests-special makefile variable at all; the tests 
could just go in the tests variable, and the makefile rules for the 
specific .out files would override the pattern rule.  So do we actually 
want the tests-special variable at all for cases where the test generates 
a .out file, or only for the cases where there is some good reason for the 
test to do otherwise (e.g. in catgets/Makefile where the test is that a 
.cat file is generated without error, or if we generally say that any 
intermediate rule running something on the host counts as a test for the 
purpose of allowing the testsuite to run to completion)?

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]