[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: parallel testsuite execution
From: |
Akim Demaille |
Subject: |
Re: parallel testsuite execution |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:14:39 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/22.0.95 (gnu/linux) |
>>> "RW" == Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden> writes:
> Hello Benoit,
Hi Ralf,
Sorry for answering so late...
> Can you rid it of nonportable constructs, and more importantly, can it
> be included in Automake (copyright transfered to the FSF etc.)?
Sure, no problems.
> Hmm, let's see. Most suffix rules should be trival to convert, unless I
> missed something, except for the
>> %.log: %$(EXEEXT)
> rule.
Yes, it should be straightforward. In fact the most difficult task is
that I'd like to support multiple test suites in a single directory.
Maybe that's overkill, but in my context it would be quite useful
actually.
So I would like to be able to write something like
TEST_SUITES = foo bar
foo_TESTS = foo1.chk foo2.test foo3
bar_TESTS = bar1.test bar2.sh bar3.c
and be able to write on the side rules explaining how to .chk -> .log,
.test -> .log etc.
Maybe instead of _TESTS we could reuse _SOURCES? That's not
inconsistent: they are really sources which must be compiled into
*.log files which are then linked together to produce foo.log and
bar.log.
> I guess as a first approximation it would be ok to do without. The
> awk script may require a bit of work for Solaris; I'd just drop the
> colors;
Nah, please, let's keep them, it's really very useful!
> $(basename ..) is not portable;
Will be fixed when migrated to Automake.
> and also it would need adjustment for Sun make's gigantic VPATH
> rewriting feature; 'TEST_LOGS ?=' would need to be replaced by an
> override done at 'automake' time.
Sure, but who's going to spend some time on this?
> The whole thing should probably be governed by an Automake option
> parallel-tests, defaulting to off, for backward compatibility.
> Then some documentation, and about three tests to ensure it works
> as intended.
We can handle that part.
> IOW, if nobody else I could probably even volunteer to do the rewrite
> once the legal situation is clear.
That's a good thing to know :)
- Re: parallel testsuite execution,
Akim Demaille <=
- Re: parallel testsuite execution, txie, 2007/10/24
- creating shared libraries (was: parallel testsuite execution), Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/10/24
- Re: creating shared libraries (was: parallel testsuite execution), txie, 2007/10/24
- Re: creating shared libraries, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/10/24
- Re: creating shared libraries, txie, 2007/10/25
- Re: creating shared libraries, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/10/25
- Re: creating shared libraries, txie, 2007/10/26
- Re: creating shared libraries, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/10/26
- Re: creating shared libraries, txie, 2007/10/29
Re: parallel testsuite execution, Ralf Wildenhues, 2007/10/24