On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Will Coleda <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Peter Lobsinger <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM, James E Keenan <[email protected]> wrote: >>> $ ll t/include/ >>> total 1 >>> -rw-r--r-- 1 jimk jimk 760 Dec 14 20:30 fp_equality.t >>> >>> This directory in our repository holds a single test file. From the >>> documentation: >>> >>> t/include/fp_equality.t - Test runtime/parrot/include/fp_equality.pasm >>> >>> DESCRIPTION: Tests fp_* functions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Could this file be moved to another directory? Do we expect to have to >>> write tests for other files under runtime/parrot/include/? >> >> There are only 2 other files in that directory which are not >> automatically generated by h2inc: >> * test_more.pir - straightforward and already gets a heavy workout >> from our test suite. no test required. >> * hllmacros.pir - contains macros for emulating HLL constructs in >> assembly. if I remember correctly, these are known to be buggy, and >> their use is ill-advised. why hasn't this been removed yet? > >> Neither of these two files are likely to get tests. > > $ ack -ai hllmacros t > t/library/hllmacros.t > 4:.include 'hllmacros.pir' > > $ prove t/library/hllmacros.t > t/library/hllmacros.t .. ok > All tests successful. > Files=1, Tests=17, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.03 usr 0.01 sys + 0.02 cusr > 0.03 csys = 0.09 CPU) > Result: PASS > > These macros are tested, and are used extensively in partcl. > > Also: > > $ prove t/library/test_more.t > t/library/test_more.t .. ok > All tests successful. > Files=1, Tests=117, 1 wallclock secs ( 0.04 usr 0.01 sys + 0.12 > cusr 0.04 csys = 0.21 CPU) > Result: PASS
I stand corrected. Don't know where I got the impression that they were buggy. > >> This directory is exclusively for files using assembly code textual >> inclusion as a loading mechanism. Among parrot devs, this has fallen >> out of favour as a means of separating abstractions out into files. We >> are unlikely to add more files that use textual inclusion at the >> assembly level as their method of loading. >> >> Recap: new tests for existing files unlikely & new files unlikely. >> therefore, new test files unlikely. >> >>> I would like to know because 't/include/' is currently *not* include under >>> either 'make test' or 'make fulltest' -- which means it's not regularly >>> being run at all. >> >> Well that's a problem. These tests prove (or should prove) that the >> floating point comparison macros (which are/should be used pervasively >> through our test suite) are sane. This sanity is critical to the >> testing of other components of parrot. >> >>> Thank you very much. >>> kid51 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev >> > > > > -- > Will "Coke" Coleda > _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
