This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [2.20] [4/6] Enumerate tests with special rules in tests-special variable
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2014 20:47:58 -0500
- Subject: Re: [2.20] [4/6] Enumerate tests with special rules in tests-special variable
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401100208000 dot 9412 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1401100212440 dot 9412 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <5318B9AD dot 4060305 at redhat dot com> <Pine dot LNX dot 4 dot 64 dot 1403062200410 dot 23661 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
On 03/06/2014 05:08 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2014, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>
>>> * Should tests that don't generate output files be changed (in a
>>> separate patch or patches) to do so?
>>
>> Yes. All tests should generate output files. I also think all tests
>> should be named in such a way that makes it easy to identify the test
>> e.g. starting with tst-, and not bug-. As it makes it easier for
>> developers to know exact what is and is not a test, grep, sed, and
>> do other manipulations on them for whatever purposes.
>
> If you want a convention for naming source files, I wonder about using a
> test/ subdirectory of each directory, for all files used only for tests
> (including putting sysdeps files used only for tests in test/
> subdirectories of sysdeps directories - though this would make the paths
> to abilist baselines even longer), and likewise in object directories.
As long as we're talking about adding a `test' subdirectory to the existing
structure then I think that's a great idea.
That way you can exclude those sources from searches regardless of their
names, and the test files (and their data files) don't get in the way of
looking for implementation source files.
>>> +# Run a test on the header files we use.
>>> +# XXX Please note that for now we ignore the result of this test.
>>
>> Nit. Please make this a TODO: marker and describe briefly that we need
>> to check the result of this test, which we presently ignore.
>
> The patch is moving this comment from one place to another, not changing
> it (and in any case what we actually need to do is obsolete this test by
> conformtest, which I hope to do eventually after getting a copy of
> POSIX.1-1990 which defines _POSIX_SOURCE as used by this test -
> unfortunately the copy I ordered in January hasn't turned up yet).
That's fine then. I missed that you were just moving it.
Cheers,
Carlos.