automake-ng
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 2/6] [ng] parallel-tests: do not exceed command


From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [Automake-NG] [PATCH 2/6] [ng] parallel-tests: do not exceed command line length limits
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 10:02:47 +0200

On 07/22/2012 09:43 AM, Akim Demaille wrote:
> 
> Le 21 juil. 2012 à 10:50, Stefano Lattarini a écrit :
> 
>> Fixes automake bug#7868.
>>
>> Two things worth noting:
>>
>> + a "make recheck" issued after a huge number of tests have failed
>>   can still hit command-line length issues;
>>
>> + the check-recipes now contain (first among the Automake-generated
>>   recipes) a use of the 'xargs' utility.
>>
>> These issues will likely be tackled by later patches.
>>
>> * Makefile.am (XFAIL_TESTS): Remove 't/parallel-tests-many.sh'.
>> * lib/am/clean.am (.am.clean-cmd.f, .am.clean-cmd.d, .am.rm-f,
>> .am.rm-rf): Moved their definitions …
> 
> Move
>
Right.  Consider this fixed.

>> * lib/am/header-vars.am: ... here, because we need to use them ...
>> * lib/am/parallel-tests.am: ... here as well.
>> (am.test-harness.workdir, am.setup-test-harness-workdir,
>> am.test-harness.append-to-list-of-bases): New internal variables.
>> Use them to avoid hitting command-line length limits ...
>> ($(TEST_SUITE_LOG), recheck): ... in this rules ...
>> (am__remove_if_not_lazy_check): ... and in the shell code defined
>> by this internal variable.
> 
>> +      while read b; do echo $$b; done <$$workdir/bases              \
>>          | $(am__create_global_log);                                 \
> 
> What is the point of the loop?
>
None actually; it just happened to be there already, and I didn't
notice I could remove it.

> < $$workdir/bases $(am__create_global_log)
>
Good point.  This would also catch unexpected I/O errors reading from
$workdir/bases (the previous formulation would cause the non-zero exit
status of the "while" loop to be lost in the pipeline).

> Similarly elsewhere.
> 
I plan to do similar adjustments in a follow-up patch on the top of
this series (with you as co-author).  Is that OK?

Thanks,
  Stefano



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]