Ralf Wildenhues Ralf.Wildenhues at gmx.de writes:
I'm thinking of applying this series; any problems?
The first (very minor) one that I see is that your log messages are not
verbose enough for me to follow. For example, this:
Addressed in the refactored series, shown below. I'll wait a
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 04:54:21PM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues Ralf.Wildenhues at gmx.de writes:
I'm thinking of applying this series; any problems?
The first (very minor) one that I see is that your log messages are not
verbose enough for me to follow. For
Eric Blake ebb9 at byu.net writes:
Of the three, only the last one presents any backwards incompatibilities,
but as the bison testsuite recently went through some serious hoops to try
to work around AT_CHECK failing to shell-escape macro contents, it seems
like it is a true bug fix as opposed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 4/15/2009 2:05 PM:
I'm wondering whether s/AT_CHECK_NOESCAPE/AT_CHECK_EXPAND/g would be
good. Even with that, the name makes me think that the macro would do
something different with its first argument, rather than
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 4/6/2009 11:14 AM:
probably need to teach more of autotest about automake's recent addition of
status 99 meaning hardfail (not even XFAIL can exempt it from making the
overall testsuite report failure), but that is why
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Wildenhues on 4/6/2009 12:03 PM:
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 07:14:36PM CEST:
Ralf, do you think we should also add a 'parallel syntax check' test?
Yes, definitely. And thanks for this patch and the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 4/6/2009 11:14 AM:
Second, in the presence of a botched test (here, autotest botched it; but it
is
also conceivable that a developer could do likewise), the overall testsuite
status was dependent on whether a previous
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Eric Blake on 4/9/2009 6:56 AM:
However, this patch now makes an empty test fail instead of pass, which
causes a regression in our testsuite.
AT_SETUP([empty test])
AT_CLEANUP
So I'm working on fixing that.
Done as follows.
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 08:16:28PM CEST:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/autoconf.git/commit/?id=abe172
Well, that patch was indeed the cause of a regression. However, bison was
lucky that it was not using a shell comment, which is broken even in 2.63.
Here's the
Found this while running the bison testsuite after upgrading to 2.63b:
$ make check TESTSUITEFLAGS=56-57
...
## -- ##
## GNU Bison 2.4.284-3583 test suite. ##
## -- ##
Output file names.
56: Output file name: )
Hi Eric,
* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 07:14:36PM CEST:
Ralf, do you think we should also add a 'parallel syntax check' test?
Yes, definitely. And thanks for this patch and the testsuite size
reduction!
Cheers,
Ralf
11 matches
Mail list logo
