Hi All,
> In fact this isn't the main issue in the mail I mentioned. I wasn't > talking about the errors I got. I was talking about something Jose > said there. > In that mail Jose says: > >> The compilation of the unit tests fails when compiling >> torture/unit/base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c, due to the usage of check >> fixtures introduced by a recent patch. Currently nocheck is not >> supporting fixtures. > > And then comes some talking about check and nocheck. > Please read the mail again. > Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Yes, that's all true. We developed builtin no-check as a very simple replacement of `check' library so that it could be used in Windows systems (or in systems where `check' was just not available). In fact, if you check the source code of no-check, it's just a more-or-less API compatible module replacing `check' library. >> >> Build Error >> --------------------- >>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I../../src -I../../lib >> -I../../src -I../../src/base -I../../src/object >> -I../../torture/tortutils -DTEST_DATA_PATH=\"../../torture/testdata\" >> -Inocheck/ -g -g -MT pdf-stm-write.o -MD -MP -MF >> .deps/pdf-stm-write.Tpo -c -o pdf-stm-write.o `test -f >> 'base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c' || echo './'`base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c >>> base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c: In function 'mem_stm_fixture_setup': >>> base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c:52: error: 'test_name' undeclared (first use in >>> this function) >>> base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c:52: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported >>> only once >>> base/stm/pdf-stm-write.c:52: error: for each function it appears in.) >>> make[2]: *** Some time ago, some new tests were added using fixtures in `check', and fixtures were not originally added in our no-check replacement. And we don't want to add support to them now (not sure if possible), because now the original `check' library (at least the repository version they have) works on Windows machines. This is, you can create your `check' DLL (if not already created by someone out there) and use it along with our tests in Windows OS. This new Windows-compatible check still lacks forking support, so the behavior will be completely similar to what we previously had with no-check, but supporting more things, like fixtures (I hope so, I didn't try it). Should we maybe disable `no-check' from now on? If it doesn't even compile, it doesn't make much sense to have it there, I would say. Or maybe we can hack it so that at least it ignores fixtures while compiling... Cheers! -Aleksander
