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