Re: [PATCH] yacc: extend and improve tests

[Stefano Lattarini]

On Saturday 08 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 08:33:28PM CET:
> > On Saturday 08 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> 
> > > > --- /dev/null
> > > > +++ b/tests/yacc-d-basic.test
> > > > @@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
> > > > +#! /bin/sh
> > > > +# Copyright (C) 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> > > 
> > > If this supersedes yacc3.test, then does it not also derive from it?
> > >
> > Actually no; I've basically written it from scratch (with some help
> > from `yacc-basic.test'). 
> 
> Ignore my comment then.
> 
> > > > +# Even the generated header file is renamed when target-specific YFLAGS
> > > > +# are used.  This might not be the best semantic, but it has been in 
> > > > place
> > > 
> > > semantics
> > > 
> > I went for "behaviour" instead.
> 
> Not to get into a British vs. US English bikeshed argumentation, but I
> usually use the latter, just because it's more prevalent in the code
> already, and I mildly prefer consistency.  So if you don't mind, use
> "behavior", but otherwise I'll try not to make this a topic any further.
>
Honostly, I didn't even know "behavior" was an accepted spelling in the
US!  Fixed now, as I hadn't pushed the patch yet.

I'll try to remember the preference for US spelling in the future (but
I might easily slip up in this matter, so be prepared to correct me
again).

> > > > +# for quite a long time, so just go along with it for now.
> > > 
> > > Just out of curiosity: can you explain why this may not be good
> > > semantics?
> > >
> > Because the details of outfile renamings when per-object flags are
> > involved should be (as much as possible) an internal detail of
> > automake.  But in this case this detail must be exposed, since the
> > output header file might be #included in other files (such as in
> > the examples in this same testcase).  Not a big deal, but noting
> > this wart in a comment couldn't hurt either IMHO.
> 
> Sure.  I really was interested only.
> 
> > > > +$MAKE -s echo-distcom | grep '[ /]zardoz-parse.c '
> > > > +$MAKE -s echo-distcom | grep '[ /]zardoz-parse.h '
> > > 
> > > Did you try with some non-GNU make (e.g., heirloom or BSD make)?
> > >
> > Yes; NetBSD make (debian port) and Heirloom/Solaris make works
> > correctly, while FreeBSD make fails the distcheck with:
> >   ...
> >   ERROR: files left in build directory after distclean:
> >   ./foo/parse.h
> >   ./foo/parse.c
> >   ./bar/parse.h
> >   ./bar/parse.c
> >   ./baz/zardoz-parse.h
> >   ./baz/zardoz-parse.c
> >   *** Error code 1
> > 
> > There are failures in other tests with FreeBSD (and Solaris) make,
> > but I'd rather leave them in place as they expose real issues (no
> > point in sweeping the dirt under the rug to have a 100% testsuite
> > pass in any case, right?).
> 
> ACK.
> 
> > > > +# Sanity check on distribution.
> > > 
> > > s/on //
> > >
> > Really? Sounds weird to me (but I made the edit anyway).
> 
> Oops.  Hmm.  I guess that depends on whether you read 'check' as noun
> or verb.
>
I was reading it as a noun.

> If the latter, then probably s/on/the/ would've been better
> though.
>
Fixed this too.

> > I will push soonish (tonight or tomorrow).
> 
> Thanks!
> Ralf
> 

Regards,
   Stefano