Johannes Pfau wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:11:49 +0200 > schrieb Jacob Carlborg <d...@me.com>: > > > On 2012-09-20 21:11, Johannes Pfau wrote: > > > > > Oh right, I thought that interface was more restrictive. So the only > > > changes necessary in druntime are to adapt to the new compiler > > > interface. > > > > > > The new dmd code is still necessary, as it allows to access > > > all unittests of a module individually. The current code only > > > provides one function for all unittests in a module. > > > > Yes, exactly. There where some additional data, like file and module > > name as well in your compiler changes? > > > > The modulename can already be obtained from the moduleinfo. My proposal > adds fileName and line information for every unittest. It's also > prepared for unittest names: The name information is passed to the > runtime, but currently it's always an empty string.
Why do you need filename and line information of a unittest. If a unittest fails you'll get the relevant information. Why do you want the information when a unittest succeeded? I only care about failed unittests. A count of the number of executed unittests and total number is enough, I think. Jens