From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2021 12:05:32 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls: Use anonymous .resource_files for docparse In-Reply-To: References: <20210303023235.431238-1-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Cyril, > Hi! > > > > we need to do some investigation about it. > > > gcc -E foo.c would do expansion for us. But not sure if it's worth of runtime. > > > Because problem of missing definitions will be on other places and we don't want > > > to get rid of definitions. e.g. I planned to add some tag definitions (for > > > "linux-git", ...) as Martin Doucha suggested, but this would not work until > > > we expand macros. > > I was looking into the output of gcc -E but it brings other problems. > > Wouldn't be better instead of patching like this to just replace docparse.c with > > library support to test itself print it's description in json format > > (e.g. --print-json opt)? I was thinking to use the same for shell tests docparse > > (which aren't covered at all yet). > I've been there and tried that that was v1 of the proposal, it did not work. OK, thanks for info. > We can add macro expansion to the docparse instead, it shouldn't be that > hard. Not sure if I understand what you mean. Using gcc -E or something else? Kind regards, Petr