[PATCH 2/2] selftests/breakpoints: only set TEST_PROGS when built

[shuahkh@osg.samsung.com (Shuah Khan)]

On 05/14/2015 08:15 AM, Tyler Baker wrote:
> On 13 May 2015 at 14:41, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> On 05/12/2015 03:59 PM, tyler.baker at linaro.org wrote:
>>> From: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org>
>>>
>>> Set TEST_PROGS only when a build has occurred.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile | 3 +--
>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>> index 1822356..54cc3e7 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/breakpoints/Makefile
>>> @@ -12,12 +12,11 @@ endif
>>>  all:
>>>  ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>>>       gcc breakpoint_test.c -o breakpoint_test
>>> +     TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>>  else
>>>       echo "Not an x86 target, can't build breakpoints selftests"
>>>  endif
>>>
>>> -TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>>> -
>>>  include ../lib.mk
>>>
>>>  clean:
>>>
>>
>> Hmm. With this change install fails to copy breakpoint_test all
>> together. Remember setting TEST_PROGS in compile step makes it
>> not stick around when install target is called. A better approach
>> would be the following:
>>
>> if [ -f breakpoint_test ]
>>     TEST_PROGS := breakpoint_test
>> fi
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out, this is a good catch. We will also need
> to do this for the x86 tests IIRC. Would it make more sense to have
> this check performed in the INSTALL_RULE so that we don't have to have
> a bunch of IF statements in the various Makefiles?

Right. x86 will need this type of logic for 32-bit execs when they
aren't not built on a 64-bit system, and for 64-bit execs when they
aren't built on a 32-bit system.

> 
> Something like...
> 
>        @for ARTIFACT in $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED) $(TEST_FILES); do \
>                if [ -f $$ARTIFACT ]; then \
>                     install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $$ARTIFACT; \
>                fi; \
>        done;
> 

I think it makes perfect sense to do this in INSTALL_RULE.
As you said, this will avoid changes to test individual
Makefiles and new test writers don't have to worry about
adding this.

Would you like make the necessary changes?

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh at osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978