On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 04:10:23PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
>> I have no comment on the patch itself, but I like the approach - I've
>> concluded before that this is the only sane way to test toolchain
>> pieces, especially compiler or C library. We do all of our testing
>> after installation here.
>
>My patch doesn't really create a full installation tree that looks
>identical to the one created by 'make install'; that might require
>somewhat more effort (unless we want to just $(MAKE) install
>DESTDIR=somewhere/in/tree for every make test).
A better approach would be to just
test-includes: test/include/bits/uClibc_config.h
$(make) -C $(top_builddir) PREFIX=test/ RUNTIME_PREFIX=test/ \
DEVEL_PREFIX=/ \
HOSTCC="$(HOSTCC)" \
eventual_flags_passing_here \
install_dev
i.e. do a real, full install an no fakery.
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc@uclibc.org
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
