Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Friday 21 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:16:35PM CET: The `silent-yacc*.test' and `silent-lex*.test' tests were testing non-generic rules for C sources only, not for Lex/Yacc sources. Also, the output emitted by

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-22 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28:58PM CET: On Friday 21 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: AFAICS it still isn't fully, even after this patch: you don't trigger the recover from removal of header rule anywhere. [...] And if that wasn't the point of the new test

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
On Saturday 22 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 12:28:58PM CET: Well, not really, but I've become more suspicious since I realised that, after my recent commit v1.11-268-g3544a43 yacc: support variable expansions in *YFLAGS definition,

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-22 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 02:38:55PM CET: or add an XFAILing test that exposes this change? Well, to make amend, I can add a bunch of tests verifying that the idiom holds for the whole lot of *FLAGS variables. Attached is my attempt for YFLAGS. Should I add the

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-22 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hi Ralf. I've (basically) addressed all your nits, and pushed to yacc-work. Just one nit on my part ... +# Check that the expected non-generic rules has been truly generated. truly have been generated. +# Otherwise, the coverage offered by this test will be weaker then +# expected

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-22 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 06:38:29PM CET: I've (basically) addressed all your nits, and pushed to yacc-work. Thanks! Just one nit on my part ... +# Check that the expected non-generic rules has been truly generated. truly have been generated. +#

[PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-21 Thread Stefano Lattarini
Hello automakers. The `silent-yacc*.test' and `silent-lex*.test' tests were testing non-generic rules for C sources only, not for Lex/Yacc sources. Also, the output emitted by automake-generated rules when updating a yacc-generated header wasn't being tested anywhere. The attached patch should

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: more coverage on yacc/lex silent-rules, plus minor cleanups

2011-01-21 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 01:16:35PM CET: The `silent-yacc*.test' and `silent-lex*.test' tests were testing non-generic rules for C sources only, not for Lex/Yacc sources. Also, the output emitted by automake-generated rules when updating a yacc-generated header