From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Roskin Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] Add a simple test script, embed expected results into test files Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:21:53 -0400 Message-ID: <1183065713.5368.10.camel@dv> References: <20070628053954.30704.66440.stgit@dv.roinet.com> <20070628054019.30704.64375.stgit@dv.roinet.com> <46836129.7050407@freedesktop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([140.186.70.10]:40361 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1761058AbXF1VV6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:21:58 -0400 Received: from proski by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1I41R7-0006zV-29 for linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:21:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-sparse-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org To: Damien Lespiau Cc: Josh Triplett , linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org Hello Damien, On Thu, 2007-06-28 at 20:59 +0200, Damien Lespiau wrote: > I happen to have 3 patches in my tree that look like this one. I > thought you might > want to have a look as they appear to handle the points you were wanting to fix. > Patch 3 is a "documentation patch" that explains what I wanted to do. I see your testsuite is much more sophisticated, since it can handle: - known bad tests - return codes other than 0 - stdout (combined with stderr) - test-specific sparse flags More verbose keywords also look better. And having the documentation is another advantage. I don't think I'll be able to match what you have done (unless you see a patch from me within the next hour). Maybe your testsuite could be applied instead? -- Regards, Pavel Roskin