[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 0/5] More patches for the tests-init branch
From: |
Stefano Lattarini |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH 0/5] More patches for the tests-init branch |
Date: |
Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:30:21 +0100 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; ) |
On Saturday 20 November 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:18:15PM CET:
> > Tests defs: don't let useless variables leak in test scripts.
> > Tests defs: new subroutine `skip' for test skipping.
> > Tests defs: some cleanup and minor fixes.
>
> > No "ticking clock" for this patches at the moment; the clock will be
> > started only after the current testsuite regressions have been solved.
>
> Patches (1) through (3) will have to wait until somebody has figured out
> why the *+#&$)! /bin/sh on Tru64 exits upon
> set +e
> case `(set -o) 2>/dev/null` in *posix*) set -o posix;; esac
>
> if 'set -e' has been called at some earlier point (leading to the
> instspc*test and probably other spurious test failures). Might be
> some internal shell data corruption, not sure.
>
Wild guess: what about this?
case `(set -o) 2>/dev/null` in *posix*) set -o posix;; *) :;; esac
Anyway, in the long run, I think it would be simpler and more reliable
to run the tests with configure-detected $SHELL, and add proper configure
checks to reject overly buggy shells.
The pending patch of mine "Testsuite: use $SHELL to run tests which
are shell scripts":
<http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/automake-patches/2010-09/msg00022.html>
can help with this (it implements the fist step).
Regards,
Stefano
- Re: [PATCH 5/5] Tests required tools: also try `-v' option for GNU compilers., (continued)
- [PATCH 3/5] Tests defs: some cleanup and minor fixes., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/11/15
- [PATCH 2/5] Tests defs: new subroutine `skip' for test skipping., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/11/15
- [PATCH 1/5] Tests defs: don't let useless variables leak in test scripts., Stefano Lattarini, 2010/11/15
- Re: [PATCH 0/5] More patches for the tests-init branch, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/11/20
- Re: [PATCH 0/5] More patches for the tests-init branch,
Stefano Lattarini <=