On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 11:08 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012, Jed Brown wrote: > > > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 10:41 AM, Satish Balay <balay at mcs.anl.gov> > wrote: > > > > > The naming/clasification is not perfect. > > > > > > Looks like Barry tried to fix this - by adding a target > > > tests_DATAFILESPATH - but now it has both C and fortran examples in > > > it? [i.e TESTEXAMPLES_FORTRAN_NOCOMPLEX and TESTEXAMPLES_C_NOCOMPLEX] > > > > > > http://petsc.cs.iit.edu/petsc/petsc-dev/rev/c37110e4b450 > > > > > > Perhaps this stuff needs an overhaul.. > > > > > > > I also think it should be overhauled so that examples can be tagged when > > they are declared. I think that Python declarative syntax is easy, but it > > would be good to parse the existing makefiles to avoid needing a manual > > conversion. > > > > Is everyone okay with the test suite depending on Python? > > I think python is fine - as long as the run targets still remain in > the makefile. > I am fine with having run targets, AS LONG as they are not shell. Make them Python. Make can run python just as well as shell/ Matt > Are you saying each 'run' target in the makefile will be tagged - and > the python script will parse this tag? > > Satish > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20120726/984c2b41/attachment-0001.html>