On 15/09/10 09:18 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote: > That seems like a reasonable thing to do, but here's an alternative > way to do this (less variables): > > --- a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/include/posixtest.h > +++ b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/include/posixtest.h > @@ -10,10 +10,24 @@ > * return codes > */ > > +/* > + * Define PTS_DEVELOPER_MODE if you want to compile for developer scenarios, > + * including reporting errors (as opposed to warnings), when compiling some > + * test programs. > + */ > + > #if defined(_GNU_SOURCE) > +#if defined(PTS_DEVELOPER_MODE) > #error "Contains GNU-isms that need fixing." > +#else > +#warning "Contains GNU-isms that need fixing." > +#endif > #elif defined(_BSD_SOURCE) > +#if defined(PTS_DEVELOPER_MODE) > #error "Contains BSD-isms that need fixing." > +#else > +#warning "Contains BSD-isms that need fixing." > +#endif > #endif > > #define PTS_PASS 0 > > Thanks for the idea Hannu :), > -Garrett >
Ok, even better, less is always good! Developer mode sounds good. Should this posixtest.h be kind of a must include for all test cases? Currently not all cases include this. br, Hannu ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
