Re: [PATCH v2] Overhauled and modularized tests in `instspc.test'.

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:53:22PM CEST:
> > On Thursday 16 September 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > With nits below addressed, the patch is OK for master, but
> > > please commit to a new branch off of maint
> > 
> > That's what I tried at first, but unfortunately the maint branch
> > lacks support for silent-rules.  However, it might be possible
> > that $(AM_V_GEN) and friends behaves as no-op in maint,
> 
> Yes you can assume that.
OK. I'll rebase the patch on maint then.  Proper testing will follow
(on GNU/Linux and Solaris with several setups -- this might take a 
while, even a couple of days).  If everything goes smoothly, I'll
post the final "FYI" patch.
 
> > > > --- a/tests/Makefile.am
> > > > +++ b/tests/Makefile.am
> > > > 
> > > > +$(instspc_tests): Makefile.am
> > > > +       $(AM_V_at)rm -f $@ address@hidden
> > > > +       $(AM_V_GEN) :; \
> > > > +         base=`expr x'$@' : x'instspc-\(.*\)\.test$$'`; \
> > > 
> > > I think $@ could contain $(srcdir) here, no?
> > 
> > Why? In "True VPATH Spirit", we generate tests in the builddir,
> > not in the srcdir.
> 
> Are they distributed?  If yes, then from a tarball, they are in
> srcdir. (The user might have botched time stamps, or modified an
> input file on purpose, say for a bugfix.)
Right, sorry for not havingh thought of that myself.

I've amended to this:
 base=`expr 'x/$@' : 'x.*/instspc-\(.*\)\.test$$'`; 

BUT...  this still generates tests in the builddir, even if
$(builddir) != $(srcdir) and the tests are already distributed
in $(srcdir).  Ouch.  Luckily, in this case, the tests generated
in the $(builddir) are preferred over those in $(srcdir), (by GNU 
make, Heirloom make and FreeBSD make at least), so the semantic
is still right.  Is the something we can live with?  Should we
try to adreess it in a follow-up?

Regards,
  Stefano